David Egan, head of industrial and logistics research for the Americas operation of real estate giant CBRE Group, says the future is looking up for industrial property, literally and figuratively.
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.
The traditional warehouse and distribution center is a wide, squat structure sitting amid seemingly endless tracts of land at or near interstate highways or state roads. Those aren't going away, but a new type of warehouse design is muscling its way in: taller structures with a new focus on three-dimensional (3-D) measurement that captures the true extent of a building's available space.
In a report issued in late March, CBRE Group Inc. said the height of the typical U.S. warehouse had increased to 33 feet in 2016 from 24 feet in the 1960s. What's more, while 13.7 billion cubic feet of U.S. warehouse space was built from 2010 to 2016, that would be just 422.5 million square feet of space if the facilities were measured by ground-floor area. Driving the move upward is the rapid growth of e-commerce fulfillment networks that have led companies to install mezzanine levels to add more human pickers as well as a need to be closer to densely populated urban centers where land is in short supply, prohibitively expensive, or both.
David Egan, CBRE's head of industrial and logistics research for the Americas, recently spoke to Mark B. Solomon, executive editor-news, about the trend to build taller and to measure space through a 3-D prism, and how this evolution in design may spur the next phase of U.S. industrial property's multiyear success story.
Q: Industrial real estate has been on a multiyear tear. How long do you see this continuing?
A: With a growing domestic economy and e-commerce sector, demand in the near term is likely to persist. It should slow a bit from the very strong run it had from 2013-2015, but it still will be at, or above, long-run averages. The supply side, which has been somewhat slow during this cycle, is projected to deliver new product at, or slightly above, the rate of demand for the first time in nearly a decade. This will have the effect of pushing availability rates up a bit and slowing the rate of rental growth. Overall, the market is in a fairly mature state but still looks to be strong in the near term.
Q: What factors would slow the market down?
A: The two factors that would slow the market are a flat or shrinking U.S. GDP, and/or a significant slowdown in trade due to a slowing global economy or political pressures. However, both factors are mitigated to some degree by the continued buildout of the e-commerce supply chain. Both retailers and suppliers need more distribution locations to get as close as possible to the consumer. This growth is not as tied to the vagaries of the economy, and it is very likely to persist regardless of any change in the economy.
Q: The Federal Reserve is considering two, maybe three, more rate hikes in 2017. Will higher borrowing costs, which would increase inventory-carrying costs, inject friction into the industrial market?
A: Higher inventory costs are certainly an issue for supply chain players. However, the Fed's desire to raise rates would be in response to its current and future perceptions of a strong economy. A strong U.S. economy means a strong U.S. consumer who is buying things. The growth in consumption is accretive to the users of supply chain real estate. That should lead to further topline growth and mitigate the higher carrying costs that would come from higher rates.
Q: CBRE recently published a report on warehouse and DC development that predicted the future of building design will be vertical rather than horizontal, making the measurement of cubic feet, or the "third dimension," more important. Can you explain the significance of this design trend, and its impact on warehouse users and operators?
A: Modern fulfillment centers tend to have very large inventory counts and high throughput of small items in contrast to traditional warehouses, which move inventory in large batches on pallets. Modern fulfillment is very labor-intensive, so it is critical to design a warehouse where people can get access to the items in the racks. The most efficient design is to build taller warehouses for more volume, and then construct mezzanine levels on which people can walk and get access to racks 30 feet in the air. A 40-foot warehouse allows for three levels of mezzanine, which is the most efficient and cost-effective use of the entire building.
Q: E-commerce is clearly driving this, but you said the reason behind taller warehouses is that users could install more mezzanine levels to accommodate more pickers, not because it would be a more efficient use of urban space located close to many e-commerce end customers. Given this thinking, is it possible that we will see skyscraper-type warehouses dotting the rural landscapes where the traditional squat warehouses are located?
A: Skyscrapers? No. While the average warehouse height is creeping higher, it's important to note that the e-commerce user and XXL distribution centers still are a minority of the supply and demand in the market. The majority of the users are still somewhat traditional companies who adequately make use of smaller buildings.
Q: Will lower property costs be a side benefit of this trend because there will be less raw land needed?
A: Land requirements for these large buildings are not going down even as the heights go up. These types of facilities require excess land for parking for additional employees, for extra trailer storage, and to accommodate the extra truck traffic. The latter because there are more truck visits to these high-volume fulfillment centers than to regular warehouses. Savings on the costs of land is not really a feature of these buildings thus far.
Q: On another front, users that are being priced out of expensive coastal markets, as well as key inland commerce centers, are looking at less-expensive markets long considered second-tier. Is the country's transport and logistics infrastructure capable of supporting increasing demand in the nation's interior?
A: The inland port infrastructure is solid, but it has room for improvement. We have seen secondary markets such as Kansas City and Greenville/Spartanburg (S.C.) make investments in intermodal infrastructure and capture significant market share. As the major intermodal markets like Chicago and Dallas near capacity constraints, other smaller, yet well-located markets like Columbus, Ohio, have the opportunity to capture outsized growth with investment in inland port infrastructure, such as intermodal facilities and airports.
Q: What is the next frontier for industrial development? Is it geographic? Related to expansion of verticals?
A: The next interesting wave will be the addition of multilevel warehouses in the U.S. These are not warehouses with extra mezzanine levels. Rather, we're talking about cubes stacked on top of each other, where each level can accommodate trucks, and loading and unloading. This has been common for some time in dense Asian and European cities, and it will be necessary in dense, infill, land-constrained areas in the U.S. We are seeing the first wave of this in certain West Coast markets. We should see it rolling out more broadly in the next several years.
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.
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.