Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
He didn't ask for the mantle, but a case can be made that Tom Carpenter, director of North American logistics for giant International Paper Co. (IP), has become the conscience of the nation's shippers.
At the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals' 2010 Global Conference in San Diego, Carpenter was asked if shippers should be taken to task for using the economic downturn and truck overcapacity to beat up carriers on pricing. He replied that "if the marketplace is giving us [excess capacity at low rates], we have a fiduciary responsibility to bring some of it back."
At the 2011 CSCMP conference, Carpenter's comments took on a more strident tone. "The shipping community has done a good job of managing our carriers' margins," he said, the sarcasm evident in his voice.
Big shippers like IP are tough negotiators with high expectations, and are accustomed to demanding and receiving superior service at low rates, Carpenter said. But in a world of shrinking capacity, a diminishing supply of qualified truck drivers, and escalating truck life-cycle and regulatory compliance costs, the days of shippers' having it all are fast disappearing, Carpenter warned. "We can't talk out of both sides of our mouth anymore," he said.
Carpenter wasn't the only big shipper at CSCMP to sound the alarm. "We probably haven't ever been through what we will be going through in the next four years," said Mark Whittaker, vice president of PepsiCo Transportation, a unit of the beverage and snack giant that spends $3 billion a year on global transport services and boasts the largest private truck fleet in North America.
For shippers, what lies ahead could be as challenging as what Whittaker fears. From 1980, when the trucking industry was deregulated, to the year 2000, the market experienced price deflation as a plethora of new players—and capacity—entered the market, emerging technologies fostered greater efficiencies, and operating costs held relatively steady. During that period, the cost of transportation fell 65 percent in real terms, according to Noel Perry, managing director and senior consultant at Nashville, Ind.-based FTR Associates.
The last 11 years have been the inverse of the previous 20, according to Perry. Since 2000, fuel, labor, asset, and regulatory costs have climbed, barriers to entry have increased, and in the past 12 to 18 months, truckload capacity has been taken out of the market. Add to that the obsession of many shippers with maintaining lean inventories and their increasing reliance on truckers to serve as a sort of "mobile warehouse," and it's clear the issue of available capacity—and the costs of procuring it—will define the industry for the rest of the decade, Perry said.
"It is probable that capacity shortages will last for several years, not just for one," Perry told an audience at this year's CSCMP conference in Philadelphia. "We could easily see sporadic supply chain failures based on capacity shortages. That's something we are not used to."
Sticker shock
Shippers could also be in for sticker shock where freight rates are concerned. Perry said rates will need to rise 15 percent just to offset the higher costs that truckers will incur to attract and retain good drivers, whose ranks are expected to thin as a result of federal regulations like CSA 2010, an initiative designed to winnow out drivers with marginal safety records.
Making matters worse is the level of driver turnover, which is hitting uncharted territory. Thom S. Albrecht, transportation analyst for BB&T Capital Markets, said driver turnover—or "churn"—hit a stunning 90 percent in the third quarter, more than double the turnover rate for the same period in 2010. Maintaining a stable workforce will cost truckers plenty, and it will be an expense that will likely get passed on down the chain.
At the same time, trucking executives said they would not be adding new capacity for the foreseeable future. The skyrocketing cost of replacing new rigs, combined with freight rates that aren't fully compensatory for the investment, makes it economically infeasible to add to fleets, according to carrier executives. The best shippers can hope for is a straight swap of power units, a move that will put newer rigs on the road but won't have any net effect on capacity, truckers said.
"There is no credible reason to go to the board to add capacity when the return-on-asset [level] is under 5 percent," said Derek J. Leathers, president and COO of truckload carrier Werner Enterprises, at a CSCMP panel session.
Kenneth Burroughs, vice president of revenue management for UPS Freight, the less-than-truckload unit of UPS Inc., was more direct, telling the same session that "we aren't going to be adding terminal or truck capacity."
Increased liability exposure
As truckers grapple with driver shortages and fleet reductions, shippers are being warned not to expect the service quality or reliability they have grown accustomed to. Donald A. Osterberg, senior vice president of safety and security for truckload and logistics giant Schneider National Inc., said truckers face a plethora of government mandates ranging from CSA 2010, to proposed changes in driver hours of service (HOS) regulations, to the 2010 rule that requires virtually all truckers to install electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) to ensure their drivers are complying with HOS regulations. The EOBR rule, which would make it nearly impossible for drivers that once used paper logs to exceed their HOS limits, is in legal limbo after a federal appeals court in late August ruled that the policy doesn't do enough to ensure that truckers won't leverage the devices to force drivers to stay on the road even when they're tired. The rule, set to take effect in mid-2012, has been remanded to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for further consideration.
Osterberg said the cumulative effect of these mandates will be to force the supply chain to permanently rationalize service expectations. "I don't believe the current levels of service are sustainable going forward," Osterberg said at CSCMP.
Osterberg advised shippers to take their legal exposure under CSA 2010 very seriously, saying the plaintiffs' bar is chomping at the bit to pursue deep-pocketed shippers for monetary damages in the event of a fatal truck-related accident on grounds the shipper should have known under the CSA guidelines it was engaging a sub-standard driver and carrier. In addition, shippers that were shielded from liability through indemnification clauses written into carrier contracts will see that protection erode, Osterberg said, noting that 30 states already have non-indemnity laws on the books.
"Shipper liability is inevitable, and CSA will exacerbate its exposure," he said.
Shippers speaking at the conference say they are becoming increasingly proactive in tracking their drivers' performance. "We monitor [CSA] scores on a monthly and quarterly basis," said Michael F. Heckart, manager, North American logistics strategic sourcing for the agribusiness giant Deere & Co.
Heckart said Deere's relationships with its carriers are deeper than perhaps they've ever been. "It's not enough to just have a conversation with the carrier anymore," he said.
The difficulty in managing a customer's demanding requirements with fewer rigs and drivers at their disposal could compel some shippers to "roll the dice" and continue to use carriers that might be available but whom they know would be on the CSA bubble, according to Carpenter of IP. "Some [shippers] are probably doing it," he said. "But they are playing with fire and they're going to get burned."
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."