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 numbers and anecdotes tell the story. Truckload and logistics giant Werner Enterprises Inc. ran on some days in January at 145 percent of capacity. Celadon Group Inc., another large truckload carrier, had days when it was turning away 800 to 1,200 loads. Non-contract, or "spot," rates for refrigerated truck capacity were quoted as high as $10.38 a mile in January.
Shippers canceled bids midstream because they were put off by the rates they expected to receive. A sales rep for a large less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier walked into a shipper's office, proposed a large rate hike, and said the contract would not be renewed if the new rates were not accepted. The leverage of asset players in today's ultra-tight-capacity environment may have been best summed up by a trucking executive who said, "Our negotiating strategy is indifference."
As senior vice president, supply chain and transportation for Transplace, a large third-party logistics service provider (3PL), Ben Cubitt has seen plenty in his time negotiating motor carrier contracts. When asked recently how the company was coping with what some are calling the mother of all capacity-tightening cycles, you could almost hear Cubitt's shoulders shrug over the phone.
Working about 15 open bids each week as of the beginning of February, the start of the busy spring truckload contract cycle, Cubitt reported his team has typically negotiated rate increases in the low- to mid-single-digit range and price reductions in the 3 to 8 percent range. Asked how he does it, Cubitt joked that it's "that crazy lane magic."
Hardly. Transplace analyzed each lane to determine price anomalies among the various carriers. Often, there is one carrier that underbids the rest because the specific lane may be a better fit for its network, according to Cubitt. None of the competing carriers know how each is bidding, Cubitt said. Even though carriers utilize more sophisticated technology than ever before to support their bids, "carrier pricing is not that scientific," he said.
Cubitt recommends that Transplace's customers put all their lanes out for bid each year and focus on eight or so core carriers. This gives shippers more leverage and efficiency than if they had to manage 25 or so separate negotiations with multiple providers, he said. At the same time, however, Transplace will not hesitate to replace an incumbent carrier—even though its shippers place a high value on incumbents—if a reputable alternative comes in with a meaningfully lower bid, he said.
THERE'S INEFFICIENCY SOMEWHERE
Cubitt's comments underscore the notion that, in what by all accounts is a brutally tight market for truck capacity, there are still many inefficiencies that can be discovered and exploited. Good intermediaries can leverage capacity availability in ways that even large shippers can't on their own, brokers say. The key, according to Jeff Tucker, who runs Tucker Company Worldwide Inc., a family-owned broker and 3PL based in Haddonfield, N.J., is for shippers to stop thinking of brokers as a fallback mechanism and instead to "stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us" as partners. Shippers that have the volume and, perhaps more important, the culture to work strategically with intermediaries can "scale up their capacity" in ways they may never have thought possible, Tucker said.
Tucker said his company's business is split 50-50 between contracts and transactions conducted on the spot market. Tucker's contract portion is around twice the level held by a typical broker. Jeff Tucker said his company deals primarily with larger fleets that are more inclined than smaller fleets or owner-operators to work with brokers in contractual relationships.
Tucker is hell-bent on steering his firm toward more contract work. "It is my sole mission in life in 2018" to get more shipper business under contract, he said in a phone interview.
Yet weaning carriers off the spot market will likely be a difficult chore, especially with spot rates up about 30 percent year over year, on average, as of early February. For months, Truckstop.com, one of the industry's two main spot market loadboards, has been processing an average of 500,000 to 600,000 loads during each 24-hour cycle, according to Brené Hutto, the company's chief relationship officer. That pace is expected to continue through most of 2018, Hutto said early last month.
By contrast, in 2014, when capacity tightened considerably due to adverse weather across a large part of the country, Truckstop handled an average of 400,000 loads during each 24-hour period, Hutto said.
Cubitt said he believes most brokers will continue to focus on the spot market as long as tight capacity and elevated rates mean fat margins for them. However, brokers' emphasis on today's spot market lucre may be ignoring the bigger picture. According to Cubitt, in mid-2016, shippers desperate for capacity assurance began shifting portions of their volume toward asset-based carriers and away from brokers and the transactional market. The migration toward assured capacity became more pronounced after retailers started imposing stringent delivery requirements that came with penalties if they weren't met, he said.
The poster child for the latter is retailing behemoth Walmart, which last August began requiring its U.S. truckload and LTL carriers to deliver all orders in full on the "must-arrive-by date" 75 percent of the time (for truckload haulers) and 33 percent of the time (for LTL) or else face penalties. Effective April 1, Walmart plans to ratchet the requirements up to 85 percent for truckload carriers and 50 percent for LTL.
A FURTHER OPTION
Another tool that shippers have at their disposal is the so-called mini-bid, where shippers bid out small portions of their volume. This approach has been effective at minimizing exposure to big price hikes, while reducing the cost and resource burdens of annually bidding out an entire network, experts said. Even Cubitt, who advocates that shippers go out with full bids each year, admits that shippers are suffering from "bid fatigue" because of the time and resources consumed in what is an extensive annual process.
The annual full-bid dance can also be painful for carriers, as it may force them to regularly turn over the bulk of their lanes. Big truckers have to "redraw the whole map every year," said C. Thomas Barnes, a long-time transport executive who is now president of project 44, a Chicago-based logistics IT (information technology) provider.
Barnes, who bid out large volumes when he ran the multimodal unit of the former Con-way Inc., said he would insist on contracts beyond one year and do relatively frequent "surgical bids," another name for mini-bids, within the contract's time window.
CHANGE THE GAME
No matter the size of the bid, shippers would be wise in this environment not to delay putting them out, according to Michael T. Regan, founder of consultancy Tranzact Technologies Inc. Many shippers have delayed their bids to see if the market quiets down, Regan said. However, such a move is potentially disastrous because truck pricing and capacity have entered an "unprecedented" upcycle that could last at least a year and perhaps longer, said Regan, who has been around the industry for decades. Not surprisingly, he is advising clients to get their bids out sooner rather than later.
Regan and Barnes also bemoan the growing influence of procurement managers in bid preparation. Procurement folk, they said, view transport as a pure commodity where the lowest cost rules. In addition, procurement managers lack the awareness of logisticians of how to extract sustainable value out of their transport spend, they said.
Barnes said that many shippers, particularly big companies with large volumes, have a pattern, especially in periods of abundant capacity, of demanding double-digit rate cuts only to discover their service levels worsen as a result. Putting such a squeeze on carriers is unlikely to succeed in today's climate and will come back to bite shippers even if they could get the upper hand on prices, Barnes said.
"Short-term thinking gives you medium- to long-term pain, and people don't realize that," he said.
In theory, everyone says they want rate and capacity stability. In practice, though, shippers have budget targets, while carriers have rising costs and a once-every-dozen-years-or-so profit opportunity. Something has to give, according to Cubitt. "Even those who work toward a stable environment can't figure out how to get it," he said.
Tucker said the key for shippers and brokers is to recognize the lanes carriers want to play in and feed them enough good freight to make the game profitable. Shippers must realize that carriers and brokers will be reluctant to lock in prices unless the lane awards make good financial and operational sense, he said.
"There are tons of opportunities for brokers and carriers to solve lane problems for shippers," Tucker said. But, he added, "twisting arms isn't the way to lock in capacity."
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.