When weighing the cost and service benefits of a dedicated truck fleet, consider alternative designs. In many cases, a design with the potential to bring drivers back home on a regular basis will be the best option.
Although many companies use dedicated truck fleets to transport their goods, few give adequate thought to which type of configuration they choose for those fleets. But they should consider the options carefully, because this decision can have a significant impact on cost and service.
The term "dedicated fleet," also known as "dedicated contract carriage," refers to tractors, trailers, drivers, and other resources exclusively devoted to serving a set of facilities or lanes in a transportation network. They usually are owned or leased by a motor carrier or logistics service provider that is hired by the shipper to manage its fleet operations. Traditional alternatives to a dedicated fleet include operating a private fleet, hiring common carriers, or contracting with third-party logistics providers for transportation services.
Article Figures
[Figure 1] Suitability of dedicated fleet with one-way flowsEnlarge this image
[Figure 2] Suitability of dedicated fleet with bi-directional flowsEnlarge this image
For some shippers, dedicated contract carriage offers significant benefits. For one thing, dedicated transportation is an effective way to guarantee capacity. For another, experience has shown that it can reduce transportation costs and has the potential to improve on-time delivery performance by 5 to 10 percent. Moreover, shippers with dedicated contract carriage arrangements can more easily negotiate fuel surcharges and reduce their regulatory liability than can shippers with private fleets. Finally, dedicated fleets allow shippers to focus their personnel and financial resources on their core business operations, such as manufacturing, rather than on transportation management.
Dedicated fleets may be broadly classified into two categories: network-based or depot-based. A network-based dedicated fleet balances freight flows between the various nodes across the entire transportation network. In a depot-based fleet, freight moves revolve around the key truck terminals and destinations. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and shippers should analyze each of the scenarios in-depth to understand the uncertainties and operational issues before identifying a design for implementation. This article, however, will make the case that depot-based dedicated fleets are the better choice for many shippers because they offer the potential for better service and lower costs.
Suitability of dedicated fleet
Before we look at which type of dedicated fleet works best under which circumstances, it is important to note that a dedicated fleet is not suitable for all circumstances. Figure 1 and 2 illustrate how suitable a dedicated fleet would be for specific types of distribution networks. These assessments are based on research coupled with observations of real dedicated networks. As shown in Figure 1, the cost and service benefits of dedicated fleets in networks with one-way flows are limited. If the service requirements are low, available carrier capacity is high, and average length of haul is high (indicating long-haul freight), there are no benefits to implementing a dedicated fleet other than guaranteeing capacity in the supply chain. In Figure 2, it is clear that dedicated fleets have more to offer when the freight flows are bi-directional. (Note: Both figures assume no seasonality of freight flows in the network. If there are significant seasonal freight volumes, then there may be benefits to contracting short-term dedicated capacity.)
The examples used for Figures 1 and 2 are small and simple enough that it is possible to manually identify dedicated fleet opportunities. For large transportation networks with significant flows, however, it is difficult to identify those opportunities without the help of an analytical model. Such a model attempts to maximize the cost savings resulting from the implementation of a dedicated fleet.
When analyzing the cost impact of a dedicated transportation program, it is helpful for shippers to have historical information about the rates offered by common carriers for various lanes in their networks. They also will need comparative information about the cost of a dedicated fleet program, which may not be easily accessible. When that is the case, shippers may consider using hypothetical costs per mile for loads (say, US $1.25, $1.50, and $1.75) and for moving empty equipment (say, $0.75, $0.85, and $0.95) for the purpose of assessing the opportunity.
The net savings from implementing a dedicated fleet program can be determined based on the following equation (evaluation model):
Net savings = cost of using common carriers - cost of dedicated moves - cost of empty moves
This model identifies lanes that are suitable for dedicated contract carriage and those that are suitable for one-way moves. But the analysis should not stop there; after identifying the opportunities for dedicated moves, it is important to evaluate the implications for the remaining lanes, which will be served by other means. Lanes recommended for delivery by common carriers, for example, might experience a tariff (rate) increase due to a reduction in freight volumes. If those lanes experience significant rate hikes, then it may be justifiable to assign them to dedicated carriers instead. Any such changeable situation requires periodic re-evaluation.
Network-based vs. depot-based
Having ascertained that it should use a dedicated fleet, a company should next look at whether it should adopt a network-based model or a depot-based model. Figure 3 summarizes the main characteristics of these two types of dedicated fleets.
A network-based dedicated fleet balances freight flows among its nodes, and thus requires continual movement from one node to another in the network. Ensuring that the sum of inbound flows (the number of truckloads) to any node is equivalent to the sum of outbound flows from the same node makes it possible to execute transportation activities with a high rate of loaded miles. This is illustrated in Figure 4, in which red arrows indicate empty moves in the network. The numbers associated with each lane represent the number of annual loads and the length of haul for that lane, respectively. In order to achieve such a balanced flow in the network, it may be necessary to move tractors, trailers, and drivers without loads.
A major limitation of the network-based dedicated fleet is that drivers are not always able to return to their originating depots on a regular basis. For example, a driver originating from Node A in Figure 4 could follow a number of different routings, such as ABCA, ABDA, ABDEBCA, or even ABDEBCDA. The actual time required to get back to Node A would, of course, depend on the specific lanes assigned to the driver and the length of haul associated with them.
In a large network with destinations scattered across the country, drivers are likely to remain away from their originating depots for long periods. Managers can create schedules that periodically bring drivers home, but enforcing such considerations in this type of network design could negatively affect the dedicated fleet's performance.
Depot-based dedicated solutions, on the other hand, are organized according to the inbound and outbound flows around individual depots in the network. Figure 5 shows an example of a depot-based dedicated network, with Node A being the depot. Nodes C and E receive shipments from Depot A. Nodes B, D, and F ship to Depot A. Depot A is shipping to Node C 400 loads annually with a length of haul of 600 miles on lane AC. Nodes B and D are shipping 300 and 200 loads, respectively, to Depot A. By moving the empty equipment from Node C to Nodes B and D, the backhaul transportation to Node A could be executed in a cost-effective manner. Note that the resource requirement at Node D may be satisfied by moving empty equipment over short distances from Nodes C and E.
Depot-based dedicated fleet programs are suitable for large depots that either have significant inbound and outbound activity or make many local deliveries. In addition, networks with a large number of facilities, including a combination of intra-company moves (that is, between the company's own plants and distribution centers) and outbound customer shipments, could benefit from a depot-based dedicated program.
One of the biggest advantages of a depot-based network is the ability to bring drivers and equipment home on a regular basis. This has a strong, positive impact on the drivers' quality of life and job satisfaction, which understandably translates to increased driver retention and better service.
Case study example
The following case study shows how a company can first analyze whether a dedicated fleet would be suitable for its distribution network and then which type of dedicated fleet to use. This analysis employs data for 108 sites plus 184 lanes with three major depots. More than 50,000 loads were hauled annually, with an average length of haul of 1,100 miles.
Figure 6 shows the correlation between the number of "working units" (each comprising a tractor, a trailer, and a driver) and cost savings for a networkbased dedicated fleet. Figure 7 shows the estimated savings associated with various load ratios. "Load ratio" is defined as the ratio of loaded miles to total miles in the network; "total miles" includes both loaded and empty miles. With a high load ratio, it is possible to justify a dedicated fleet implementation for a small portion of the network. With a smaller load ratio, there will be a greater number of loads but also more empty miles, which is unproductive for the dedicated system.
As indicated in Figure 6, the estimated savings resulting from dedicated operations increases up to a certain point and subsequently diminishes. Figure 7 illustrates a similar relationship between cost savings and load ratio. In other words, there is an "optimum point" at which a dedicated system will maximize the net savings. The planning problem associated with dedicated fleet analysis and design, then, is to determine both the optimal number of working units and the optimal load ratio.
Figure 8 summarizes the results of the shipper's analysis of a network-based dedicated fleet with a load ratio of 99 percent, and Figure 9 does the same for a depot-based solution with a load ratio of 99 percent. (The load ratio was chosen simply for the purpose of discussion.) These analyses assume that the cost per mile for hiring common carriers is US $1.20; the cost per mile for moving a load in a dedicated system is $1; and the cost per mile for moving empty equipment is $0.85. Actual charges vary greatly depending on a variety of factors, but the degree of difference between the three values is typical.
In Figure 9, applying these assumptions for Depot A results in a total savings of US $1,154,000 (= 6,043,000*1.2 - 6,043,000*1 -64,000*0.85). When all three depots are taken into consideration, the scenario offers potential cost savings in excess of US $2.1 million by employing 91 dedicated working units with an average load ratio of 99 percent.
The depot-based solution has another advantage: workforce stability. Unlike a network-based dedicated fleet, a depot-based solution stations a predictable number of drivers at predetermined locations. This is a distinct advantage when one considers that, when the economy is strong, it's not uncommon for U.S.-based long-haul motor carriers to see a 100-percent or higher annual turnover among drivers. Adopting a depot-based solution that regularly brings drivers home helps to attract and retain drivers for the long term. Moreover, it almost goes without saying that satisfied drivers will provide the best service to customers.
Lower driver turnover offers cost benefits, too. Assuming a typical cost of US $10,000 per year to recruit and train a driver and 100-percent annual turnover of long-haul drivers, the network-based dedicated fleet implementation presented in Figure 8 will incur an estimated US $1 million recruitment and training cost. That brings the net savings for the network- based dedicated fleet solution with a 99-percent load ratio down to US $1.4 ($2.4 - $1) million. The depot-based dedicated fleet solution shown in Figure 9, with an assumed 50-percent turnover of drivers (a typical percentage), will require recruiting and training 46 drivers during the year. After deducting the lower recruitment and training costs, the depot-based solution can be expected to produce a savings opportunity of US $1.65 ($2.1 - $0.46) million. In short, the network-based dedicated fleet implementation might offer larger net savings, but when the driver turnover factor and associated costs are considered, a depot-based solution has merit.
Implications for carriers and shippers
The methodology for evaluating dedicated fleet opportunities presented earlier will benefit both carriers and shippers. First, it will give carriers the ability to evaluate the scale and scope of potential dedicated fleet opportunities in a shipper's network. This helps them to effectively respond to shippers' requests for proposal (RFPs). Second, carriers can use it to assess the dedicated fleet opportunity from the shipper's perspective by using market-average, common-carrier rates and the dedicated fleet cost coefficients they have proposed to the shippers. In addition, this analysis will guide carriers in proposing appropriate, lane-based pricing strategies in the shippers' networks. Third, this methodology will help carriers participating in optimization-based transportation procurement. (Optimization-based transportation procurement employs sophisticated analytical methods to determine which carriers and modes should be used on a set of lanes in order to minimize systemwide transportation costs.) Specifically, carriers could identify bundles of lanes and associated pricing, which is a key input to the optimization-based transportation procurement process. Finally, carriers could evaluate the trade-offs between implementing a depot-based dedicated fleet and a network-based dedicated fleet.
From a shipper's perspective, the proposed methodology can be used in two distinct ways. First, shippers interested in implementing their own private fleets could use this methodology to determine the scale and scope of private fleet opportunities in their networks. They can do so by using the rates paid to common carriers and the estimated cost of establishing and operating a private fleet as inputs. Second, shippers can use the methodology to negotiate rates with dedicated carriers. For example, shippers could estimate the cost benefits of a dedicated fleet on various lanes and negotiate the rates accordingly.
Transportation and logistics managers should consider a depot-based dedicated fleet as a way to reduce their operating costs and improve service in their networks. Equally important, implementing a depot-based dedicated fleet has significant potential to enhance the quality of life for drivers, and thus improves driver retention. The creation of a stable workforce of drivers thereby ensures shippers a consistent, high quality of service to their customers at a reasonable cost.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded for the 10th straight month in September, reaching its highest reading in two years, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The LMI registered 58.6, up more than two points from August’s reading and its highest level since September 2022.
The LMI is a monthly measure of business activity across warehousing and transportation markets. A reading above 50 indicates expansion, and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The September data is proof the industry is “back on solid footing” according to the LMI researchers, who pointed to expanding inventory levels driven by a long-expected restocking among retailers gearing up for peak-season demand. That shift is also reflected in higher rates of both warehousing and transportation prices among retailers and other downstream firms—a signal that “retail supply chains are whirring back into motion” for peak.
“The fact that peak season is happening at all should be a bit of a relief for the logistics industry—and economy as a whole—since we have not really seen a traditional seasonal peak since 2021,” the researchers wrote. “… or possibly even 2019, if you don’t consider 2020 or 2021 to be ‘normal.’”
The East Coast dock worker strike earlier this week threatened to complicate that progress, according to LMI researcher Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University. Those fears were eased Thursday following a tentative agreement between the union and port operators that would put workers at dozens of ports back on the job Friday.
“We will have normal peak season demand—our first normal seasonality year in the 2020s,” Rogers said in a separate interview, noting that the port of New York and New Jersey had its busiest month on record this past July. “Inventories are moving now, downstream. That, to me, is an encouraging sign.”
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Dockworkers at dozens of U.S. East and Gulf coast ports are returning to work tonight, ending a three-day strike that had paralyzed the flow of around 50% of all imports and exports in the United States during ocean peak season.
The two groups “have reached a tentative agreement on wages and have agreed to extend the Master Contract until January 15, 2025 to return to the bargaining table to negotiate all other outstanding issues. Effective immediately, all current job actions will cease and all work covered by the Master Contract will resume,” the joint statement said.
Talks had broken down over the union’s twin demands for both pay hikes and a halt to increased automation in freight handling. After the previous contract expired at midnight on September 30, workers made good on their pledge to strike, and all activity screeched to a halt on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week.
Business groups immediately sang the praises of the deal, while also sounding a note of caution that more work remains.
The National Retail Federation (NRF) cheered the short-term contract extension, even as it urged the groups to forge a longer-lasting pact. “The decision to end the current strike and allow the East and Gulf coast ports to reopen is good news for the nation’s economy,” NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said in a release. “It is critically important that the International Longshoremen’s Association and United States Maritime Alliance work diligently and in good faith to reach a fair, final agreement before the extension expires. The sooner they reach a deal, the better for all American families.”
Likewise, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) said it was relieved to see positive progress, but that a final deal wasn’t yet complete. “Without the specter of disruption looming, the U.S. economy can continue on its path for growth and retailers can focus on delivering for consumers. We encourage both parties to stay at the negotiating table until a final deal is reached that provides retailers and consumers full certainty that the East and Gulf Coast ports are reliable gateways for the flow of commerce.”
And the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) commended the parties for coming together while also cautioning them to avoid future disruptions by using this time to reach “a fair and lasting agreement,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said in an email. “Manufacturers are encouraged that cooler heads have prevailed and the ports will reopen. By resuming work and keeping our ports operational, they have shown a commitment to listening to the concerns of manufacturers and other industries that rely on the efficient movement of goods through these critical gateways,” Timmons said. “This decision avoids the need for government intervention and invoking the Taft-Hartley Act, and it is a victory for all parties involved—preserving jobs, safeguarding supply chains, and preventing further economic disruptions.”
Supply chain planning (SCP) leaders working on transformation efforts are focused on two major high-impact technology trends, composite AI and supply chain data governance, according to a study from Gartner, Inc.
"SCP leaders are in the process of developing transformation roadmaps that will prioritize delivering on advanced decision intelligence and automated decision making," Eva Dawkins, Director Analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Composite AI, which is the combined application of different AI techniques to improve learning efficiency, will drive the optimization and automation of many planning activities at scale, while supply chain data governance is the foundational key for digital transformation.”
Their pursuit of those roadmaps is often complicated by frequent disruptions and the rapid pace of technological innovation. But Gartner says those leaders can accelerate the realized value of technology investments by facilitating a shift from IT-led to business-led digital leadership, with SCP leaders taking ownership of multidisciplinary teams to advance business operations, channels and products.
“A sound data governance strategy supports advanced technologies, such as composite AI, while also facilitating collaboration throughout the supply chain technology ecosystem,” said Dawkins. “Without attention to data governance, SCP leaders will likely struggle to achieve their expected ROI on key technology investments.”
The U.S. manufacturing sector has become an engine of new job creation over the past four years, thanks to a combination of federal incentives and mega-trends like nearshoring and the clean energy boom, according to the industrial real estate firm Savills.
While those manufacturing announcements have softened slightly from their 2022 high point, they remain historically elevated. And the sector’s growth outlook remains strong, regardless of the results of the November U.S. presidential election, the company said in its September “Savills Manufacturing Report.”
From 2021 to 2024, over 995,000 new U.S. manufacturing jobs were announced, with two thirds in advanced sectors like electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries, semiconductors, clean energy, and biomanufacturing. After peaking at 350,000 news jobs in 2022, the growth pace has slowed, with 2024 expected to see just over half that number.
But the ingredients are in place to sustain the hot temperature of American manufacturing expansion in 2025 and beyond, the company said. According to Savills, that’s because the U.S. manufacturing revival is fueled by $910 billion in federal incentives—including the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—much of which has not yet been spent. Domestic production is also expected to be boosted by new tariffs, including a planned rise in semiconductor tariffs to 50% in 2025 and an increase in tariffs on Chinese EVs from 25% to 100%.
Certain geographical regions will see greater manufacturing growth than others, since just eight states account for 47% of new manufacturing jobs and over 6.3 billion square feet of industrial space, with 197 million more square feet under development. They are: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee.
Across the border, Mexico’s manufacturing sector has also seen “revolutionary” growth driven by nearshoring strategies targeting U.S. markets and offering lower-cost labor, with a workforce that is now even cheaper than in China. Over the past four years, that country has launched 27 new plants, each creating over 500 jobs. Unlike the U.S. focus on tech manufacturing, Mexico focuses on traditional sectors such as automative parts, appliances, and consumer goods.
Looking at the future, the U.S. manufacturing sector’s growth outlook remains strong, regardless of the results of November’s presidential election, Savills said. That’s because both candidates favor protectionist trade policies, and since significant change to federal incentives would require a single party to control both the legislative and executive branches. Rather than relying on changes in political leadership, future growth of U.S. manufacturing now hinges on finding affordable, reliable power amid increasing competition between manufacturing sites and data centers, Savills said.
The number of container ships waiting outside U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports has swelled from just three vessels on Sunday to 54 on Thursday as a dockworker strike has swiftly halted bustling container traffic at some of the nation’s business facilities, according to analysis by Everstream Analytics.
As of Thursday morning, the two ports with the biggest traffic jams are Savannah (15 ships) and New York (14), followed by single-digit numbers at Mobile, Charleston, Houston, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Baltimore, and Miami, Everstream said.
The impact of that clogged flow of goods will depend on how long the strike lasts, analysts with Moody’s said. The firm’s Moody’s Analytics division estimates the strike will cause a daily hit to the U.S. economy of at least $500 million in the coming days. But that impact will jump to $2 billion per day if the strike persists for several weeks.
The immediate cost of the strike can be seen in rising surcharges and rerouting delays, which can be absorbed by most enterprise-scale companies but hit small and medium-sized businesses particularly hard, a report from Container xChange says.
“The timing of this strike is especially challenging as we are in our traditional peak season. While many pulled forward shipments earlier this year to mitigate risks, stockpiled inventories will only cushion businesses for so long. If the strike continues for an extended period, we could see significant strain on container availability and shipping schedules,” Christian Roeloffs, cofounder and CEO of Container xChange, said in a release.
“For small and medium-sized container traders, this could result in skyrocketing logistics costs and delays, making it harder to secure containers. The longer the disruption lasts, the more difficult it will be for these businesses to keep pace with market demands,” Roeloffs said.