Freight-rating software has become an indispensable tool for shippers and 3PLs in a capacity-constrained world. But choosing the right system is more than just a matter of price.
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.
It may seem a misnomer to label a $35 billion-a-year industry a "niche market." Yet that's how companies that provide freight rating software services describe their business. It is a specialized, albeit mature, field populated by relatively few vendors. As freight users across all modes seek to maximize their shipping spend in an environment of tight carrier capacity and rate increases, rate comparison tools and the companies that develop them have become increasingly important.
The basic function of freight rating software is to match a user's shipping and freight characteristics with a carrier's price and service offerings, enabling shippers and third-party logistics service providers (3PLs) to conveniently shop around for the best rates from multiple carriers. Freight rating tools are designed to optimize the headhaul and backhaul components of a shipper's network, and deliver the analytics that shippers need during lane-by-lane rate negotiations with their carriers. "There is a bit of work involved on the shipper's part, but anyone trying to hold the line on freight expenses should certainly investigate its use," said James A. Cooke, principal analyst at Nucleus Research Inc., a research firm.
Most vendors specialize in a certain mode. For example, Kewill, a U.K. firm with U.S. headquarters in Chelmsford, Mass., is particularly visible in parcel. DAT Solutions, based in Portland, Ore., has a strong presence in the truckload space. Peachtree City, Ga.-based SMC3, which has developed a rating product called "RateWare," focuses on the less-than-truckload (LTL) market.
Madison, Wis.-based RateLinx touts its software, called "ShipLinx," as mode-agnostic, meaning it doesn't try to shoehorn a user into a particular mode. In the company's view, situations arise when the traditional weight "breaks" that often determine modal choice don't apply, and a shipper whose load might seem best suited to parcel shipment could actually fetch a better rate moving via LTL. ShipLinx will identify those anomalies and suggest ways a shipper can better leverage its shipping spend, said Shannon Vaillancourt, RateLinx's founder and president.
RateLinx sells its software exclusively to shippers because it is built to disintermediate 3PLs from a process that shippers can manage on their own, said Vaillancourt. He has no qualms about the strategy, saying that most intermediaries already view his company as a cost center rather than a solution provider. Many third parties "don't understand technology, and they don't deploy it well," he noted. That said, some of the bigger freight brokers offer rating software engines within their transportation management systems (TMS).
By contrast, DAT sells its rating product, called "Rateview," to both shippers and 3PLs, according to Mark Montague, industry pricing analyst for the firm. With an estimated $53 billion spent each year by 3PLs to purchase truck transportation on the non-contract, or "spot," market, DAT sees an enormous opportunity to provide freight rating tools to help intermediaries navigate what has become a challenging landscape in the past two years, Montague said. For shippers, Rateview is important because spot rates are a reliable indicator of what truckload rates will look like when shippers begin negotiating contracts with their carriers, DAT said.
SMC licenses its RateWare product to carriers, shippers, and third-party logistics companies. However, the group avoids performing carrier rate comparisons because it wishes to remain neutral, said Brad Gregory, senior vice president of marketing and software alliances. Technology providers like Oracle Corp., SAP SE, MercuryGate, JDA Software Group Inc., and LeanLogistics represent the largest portion of Rateware's business. They use Rateware within their respective TMS suites, Gregory said.
SMC works to pair Rateware with a product called "CarrierConnect," which it developed around 2000 to supply detailed carrier and transit time information on lane segments chosen by users. The organization is beta testing an updated version of "CarrierConnect" that provides users with specific delivery dates rather than just a range, Gregory said.
St. Louis-based Cass Information Systems Inc., a freight bill audit and payment service provider that disburses $38 billion in annual freight payments on behalf of its clients, also doesn't sell its software, which is called "Ratemaker." Instead, Cass uses it to verify the accuracy of freight charges during the auditing process, according to Don Pesek, director, audit and rating services.
WHAT TO SHOP FOR
As for what goes into choosing a freight rating system, a first step is for a user to determine if the software's objective is to select carriers or to determine the lowest freight charges. A second is to gauge if the pricing will be available through a licensing agreement or on a "software as a service" basis. Beyond those two fundamental elements, experts said there are a number of common-sense factors that users should consider when shopping for a solution. Eileen W. Hart, vice president of marketing and corporate communications for DAT, said users need to determine if the data source is reliable and that the data stream is as real-time as possible.
Vaillancourt of RateLinx said prospective users should consider whether the software can meet their needs across all modes of freight. They should also investigate how frequently their vendor will update the information (ShipLinx is auto-updated weekly) and how much maintenance they would have to perform themselves, he said.
Pesek of Cass said that a freight rating system should interface with leading enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems like those offered by Oracle and SAP. A platform should also support global transactions, a key feature as more companies expand into international commerce. "The system should be able to handle multiple [foreign] currencies," said Pesek, whose company is updating its own legacy systems to manage more overall transactions and to build capabilities needed to handle complex international transactions.
Gregory of SMC3 said that large LTL shippers using a TMS should ensure that the freight rating software works with the LTL tariffs that the users utilize. Shippers should also opt for a program that can crank out rates at a rapid pace, Gregory said. This is especially important if the rating software will be used to support a network optimization initiative, an intensive and complex exercise that potentially involves the analysis of millions of rate and route combinations.
In addition, the freight rating technology should be compatible with the core technology apparatus a user has in place, Gregory said, adding that a user should not have to re-invent its technology wheel to accommodate rating software.
For small LTL shippers that move a relative handful of loads each day, week, or month, Gregory recommends a simple rating program such as the one offered by Kansas City-based Freightquote.com, which was acquired late last year by C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., the Eden Prairie, Minn.-based freight brokerage and 3PL giant. A provider like Freightquote can give mom-and-pop users the rate comparisons they need without the cost of a full-fledged TMS, he said.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that RateWare was not made available to shippers and carriers. It is licensed to those parties. DC Velocity regrets the error.
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."