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.
As a consultant to trucking companies since 1977, Larry Menaker, who heads a Chicago-based firm that bears his name, has witnessed much of the industry's past.
But Menaker says he has also seen the industry's future. And it can be summed up in one word: Dedicated.
Menaker's firm does not focus all its efforts on dedicated carriage—the practice whereby, as the name implies, a trucker dedicates equipment and drivers to serving an individual shipper, allowing that customer to lock in rates and capacity with the carrier for a multi-year period. However, he is steering many of his trucking clients in that direction.
Menaker predicts that about half of the future opportunities in trucking will emerge from the dedicated space, not from private fleet operations or from traditional on-demand service, where a trucker waits for a shipper to call with a load and dispatches a rig and trailer for a one-way haul.
Converting private fleets and one-way trips to dedicated service could bring in as much as $80 billion in additional annual revenue to dedicated carriers, according to Menaker.
Menaker also sends a blunt warning to carriers who now generate more than 90 percent of their traffic from on-demand service: Unless those companies migrate to dedicated carriage, "they will not be in business five years from now," he says.
With rising equipment costs, increasingly burdensome government regulations, and a shrinking pool of qualified drivers, carriers can ill afford to have resources sitting idle waiting for a shipper's call, and may not be able to adequately service the customer when the call does come, Menaker explains.
As a result, those carriers that stick with the on-demand model may find themselves behind the competitive eight ball or drowning in red ink, Menaker says. "If you are waiting for someone to get in touch with you, you will be in trouble," he says.
Double-digit savings
John G. Larkin, lead transport analyst for investment firm Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., calls dedicated trucking the "mutually beneficial antidote" for carriers that want to get paid for capacity and shippers that want to know it's available.
"Both shippers and carriers are increasingly realizing that dedicated trucking may be just the solution that meets both their needs," Larkin wrote in early October.
Speaking that same month at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals' (CSCMP) Annual Global Conference in Philadelphia, Larkin said shippers who own and operate private fleets could "see 10-percent savings right off the bat" from switching to dedicated service. That's because specialized operators can usually manage fuel, insurance, maintenance, equipment utilization, and driver schedules more efficiently than a shipper that also operates its own trucks can, Larkin notes.
What's more, companies that outsource their fleet needs can free up their balance sheet capacity and reinvest more of their cash into their core business, which is generally not transportation, Larkin says.
Menaker goes one better, noting that many private fleets lease their equipment from companies like Ryder Truck Leasing and Penske Truck Leasing, which charge premiums for using their vehicles. "Those premiums go away" when a shipper converts from a private fleet to dedicated carriage, he said.
All in all, a company that shifts from private fleet ownership to a dedicated operation can shave its costs by up to 15 percent, while securing dependable capacity for constant, or "baseload," volumes and using third parties like freight brokers to handle unexpected surges in demand, experts say.
A shift in the winds
The upshot is more shippers will likely be giving dedicated a second look, experts say. David D. Congdon, president and CEO of less-than-truckload carrier Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., said he expects to see an expansion in the use of dedicated service, as well as private fleets, as shippers look to build stability into their networks and reduce the risk of paying for so-called empty miles. "If you can reduce empty miles, you can beat any pricing game," Congdon told a gathering at CSCMP.
Some shippers have already seen the light. "We will rely more on dedicated fleets to manage variability, and control peaks and valleys in our traffic flow," Michael F. Heckart, manager, North American logistics and strategic sourcing at agribusiness giant Deere & Co., said at CSCMP.
Michael Cole, senior director of transportation for food and confectionary titan Kraft Foods, said at the conference that Kraft this year will have 400 rigs at its disposal for dedicated carriage, up from 220 in 2010. About 30 percent of Kraft's total 2011 rig count will be privately held or dedicated, up from 22 percent in 2010, according to Cole.
Since converting part of its fleet to dedicated, Kraft has seen an eight-percentage-point improvement in its on-time delivery metrics from its distribution centers to retailer warehouses, Cole adds.
The recent spike in interest in dedicated carriage stands in stark contrast to the 25-plus year period after truck deregulation, when the service grew so slowly that no one took notice. According to Menaker, shippers were intrigued by the concept but were skeptical about service quality and promised cost savings. Market pricing also sowed confusion, as carriers that charged premiums for providing a "specialized" service were undercut by renegade operators that priced dedicated at a discount. In addition, traffic managers who ran private fleets were loath to outsource their operations for fear of losing their jobs, Menaker adds.
All of that changed starting in the middle of the last decade, as oil prices became increasingly volatile, equipment costs rose, the industry experienced an acute driver shortage, and a freight recession pressured traffic managers to improve the efficiency of their operations and drive out costs.
Proceed with caution
As the dedicated model gains traction, experts caution shippers and carriers not to enter into these arrangements with blinders on. A dedicated relationship generally spans three to five years, and is akin to a marriage with both sides contractually joined at the hip.
And dedicated fleet contracts can be complicated compared with conventional truckload service agreements. For example, because dedicated providers are paid based on an agreed-upon number of round-trip miles driven, the contract must ensure an operator is properly compensated on low-mileage as well as high-mileage days. A properly written dedicated contract "should [be structured so that] the carrier gets paid even if a load doesn't move," says Lana R. Batts, a long-time trucking executive and a partner in Transport Capital Partners, a transport mergers and acquisitions advisory firm.
In addition, contracts must be painstakingly detailed in terms of fleet size specifications, and spell out provisions and charges for driver stop-offs, detention, and layover. Fuel surcharge, loading, and unloading costs must also be thoroughly addressed.
Menaker said the process has to be completely transparent, with shippers and carriers knowing from the start what is expected of each other.
"Both parties need to establish quantifiable performance measurements. There must be a sense of equal and shared responsibility as if each party is an extension of the other. And there has to be availability and sharing of quality information, especially if there are organizational changes that could affect the service," he said.
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."