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.
Can you answer these questions: Exactly how much do you spend on your lift truck fleet each year? How much do you spend on each truck? In an eight-hour shift, how much time does each truck actually spend moving product? Are trucks sitting idle in your facilities "just in case"?
If you can't come up with the answers, you're not alone. Specialists in lift truck fleet management report that a surprising number of DC managers are unable to provide a detailed accounting of their fleet costs and usage patterns. Yet knowing the answers to those questions is especially important these days, and for a very simple reason: Managers are under intense pressure to control their industrial truck fleet expenses. But in order to manage these costs, they first have to know what they're spending.
It comes as no surprise, then, that customers are turning to providers of fleet management services to help them make the most of their assets. Sales of new trucks may be down, but vendors say they're seeing an upswing in demand for systems and services that collect and analyze lift truck data.
"We know that buyers are not buying, but that doesn't mean purchasing [executives] and CFOs aren't looking at what they're spending," observes Michael McKean, manager of fleet marketing and sales for lift truck maker Toyota Material Handling USA.
This pressure from the top has led companies that previously resisted investing in fleet management tools to reconsider, says Scot Aitcheson, director of fleet management for Yale Materials Handling, which manufactures a broad line of industrial trucks. "I can tell you that consistently, customers ... want to be engaged, and they want visibility. They need to have data. They are really making what they do more scientific."
These days, more and more DC and fleet managers are feeling the heat, vendors say. "With the economy the way it is, a lot of warehouses and DCs, especially in the home improvement and retail sectors, have felt a lot of pressure to cut down on overhead, reduce maintenance costs, and reduce fleet costs overall," says Joe LaFergola, manager of business and information solutions for lift truck manufacturer Raymond Corp.
Shock and audit
The first step in any cost-cutting initiative is to gather detailed data across all facets of the operation. There are two ways to approach this task. One option is to bring in fleet management specialists, either independent consultants or experts affiliated with industrial truck dealers. The other is for DCs to take on the task themselves, using vehicle management systems that collect and analyze operating data. These systems typically include a device installed on each truck that captures information and transmits it to fleet management software, which then produces a variety of reports. (For more on these systems, see "remote control," September 2008.)
Typically, data analysis begins with on-site audits that track truck operations over 30 to 90 days—long enough to provide an accurate picture of how individual trucks are being used and how the fleet as a whole is performing. The object is to create a baseline against which specific savings can be measured.
With accurate data in hand, managers can identify areas that are ripe for improvement. They can determine which trucks have the highest maintenance costs, figure out if the fleet is correctly sized and if the equipment is appropriate for the job, measure drivers' productivity, and track causes of avoidable maintenance and additional costs (like damage caused by operators to product, racks, and the trucks themselves).
The results of these audits sometimes come as a shock to managers, vendors say. In a white paper titled 5 Ways to Reduce Costs of Your Industrial Vehicle Fleet, I.D. Systems, a developer of vehicle management systems, cites data showing that in an eight-hour shift, a truck typically is in motion for just two hours and is moving a load for only one.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Aitcheson says—and other fleet specialists agree—that it's not uncommon for these audits to show that a given fleet is 20 percent (or more) larger than necessary. Nor is it unusual to find short-term rental vehicles on the floor for months at a time. Aitcheson even tells of one customer that spent $27,000 in a single year on maintenance for a seven-year-old truck.
Such ignorance is certainly not bliss. In fact, it's downright expensive, says Stan Garrison, manager of fleet sales for Hyster Co. "There's no point in hanging onto a truck past its useful economic life," he says. "That drives up ownership costs and productivity costs because of downtime."
One step at a time
Collecting the information needed to analyze fleet costs is one thing. Using the data to make changes in fleet operations and driver behavior is quite another. Despite the obvious benefits, it's not always easy to get everyone on board. McKean says that when it comes to "selling" a fleet downsizing program to operations managers, the key is having accurate performance data in hand. "If we can prove utilization is high and the fleet is up and running every day, then perhaps some trucks can go away," he says.
An effective cost-cutting program does not necessarily require jumping in with both feet. There's nothing wrong with taking it one step at a time, says Aitcheson. "For a company that wants to pursue [a fleet cost-reduction program] but does not want to commit to all the processes and procedures, it could be as simple as a national preventive maintenance program," he says.
Garrison is of the same mind. He notes that getting rid of older trucks in stages can help overcome managers' fears that a downsizing program will disrupt day-to-day operations. "One of the most difficult things we [deal with] is to get a buy-in from operations," he says. "The floor managers' job is to get stuff out the door, and it takes a little bit of time to earn their trust and let them know we're not just going to leave them hanging out there."
Editor's note: For more information on conducting a lift truck fleet audit, see "lean fleets," February 2009.
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."