As we approach the final stretch of 2024, the rail industry is at a critical juncture, facing a convergence of long-standing challenges and emerging opportunities.
In recent years, the rail industry's story has been one of persistent headwinds: financial pressures, labor shortages, and heightened safety concerns following the East Palestine, Ohio, derailment, to name just a few. The shadows cast by these difficulties continue to loom large. These challenges, however, are symptoms of deeper, structural issues that have plagued the industry for over a decade.
Since the late 2000s, aggregate rail volumes have remained stubbornly stagnant. The initial gains from Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), once hailed as a revolutionary approach to operational efficiency, have largely been exhausted. The industry now grapples with this model's limitations, searching for new avenues to drive growth and profitability.
This pivotal moment demands a nuanced understanding of the sector's current state and potential trajectories.
The weight of history
In many ways, the root of today’s rail industry dilemma lies with coal. Coal was first used to generate electricity in the United States in 1882, and coal production, power plants, and railroads all grew together. In the 1970s, the development of the vast coal deposits of the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming and their proximity to major rail lines fueled a massive nationwide railroad infrastructure investment cycle that lasted a decade. It was truly a bonanza.
In the early 2000s, however, advancements in hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling led to a surge in natural gas production. As its prices fell, natural gas grew to be a titan competitor of coal for electricity generation. The impact of inexpensive and abundant natural gas has led to huge declines in coal production and coal’s share of electricity generation. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation averaged 52% in the 1990s and fell to 16% in 2023. The natural gas share rose from 16% to 43% during that same time.
The impact on coal production, transportation, and consumption has been massive. In 2023, U.S. coal production was 577.5 million tons, representing a 51% decrease from 2008 volumes of 1.13 billion tons. During that same time, originated carloads of coal by U.S. Class I railroads peaked at 7.71 million in 2008 and plummeted to 3.43 million in 2023.
The short-term outlook is just as gloomy. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), coal carloads were down 17.1% from last year, the lowest January to June volume since the AAR began keeping records in 1988. Natural gas prices remain extremely low, and the cost of generating electricity from wind and solar farms has plunged. Coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation is expected to continue to decline in 2025. As a result, a significant amount of historical rail traffic will not return.
All factors considered, in the first half of 2024, U.S. railroads originated 4.17 million carloads, excluding coal and intermodal. That volume hasn’t changed much over the last 10 years, meaning that U.S. Class I’s have been unable to replace the diminished coal traffic with other carload traffic.
Filling the carload breach
Currently there are three AAR commodity segments that ship in enough volume to potentially offset the contracted coal volumes—grain, chemicals, and petroleum products. Of the three, do any provide a platform for volume growth?
Grain does offer some of the unit train economics of coal and represents about 12% of the first half of 2024 volume for U.S. railroads. However, for railroads, the grain market is divided into two very distinct sectors—domestic and international. Domestic grain demand has been relatively flat for the last 10 years, offering little opportunity for significant volume growth. The international market is quite different. While the United States is the world's largest grain exporter, volumes can swing wildly from year to year. The unpredictability of grain exports makes the entire segment risky as a growth strategy for Class I railroads.
The chemicals industry consists of thousands of producers throughout the United States, representing a material growth opportunity for Class I’s. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that in 2022, 1.02 billion tons of chemicals were shipped in the United States at a cost of $79.0 billion. As a commodity segment, chemicals are the largest carload revenue source for U.S. Class I railroads. According to the ACC, rail represents 18% of total chemical tonnage while trucks led with 58%.
Like the chemicals segment, petroleum products represent a wide range of categories, including crude oil and refined products, including liquefied petroleum gases (LPGs), fuel oil, lubricating oils, aviation fuels, and other fuels. Together, they represent approximately 5% of U.S. rail-originating carload shipments.
A noteworthy structural opportunity that Class I’s can continue to nurture for growth in both the chemicals and petroleum products is south of the border. Today, Mexico’s ability to both produce and refine enough energy to meet its domestic needs is quite constrained, and that is reflected in the growth in imports from the United States. This export market represents a unique opportunity for Class I railroads.
Three things have driven this structural event. First, the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico creates a low-cost feedstock source for the world’s most sophisticated refining complex located in the U.S. Gulf Coast. Second, Mexico is a nearby market for both the feedstock and refining capacity. Finally, Mexico is facing a structural challenge in that its refining capacity has been operating below 50% for the last several years, and PEMEX, the Mexican state-owned petroleum company, is carrying massive debt. Railroads could serve as a vital link transporting feedstock.
The intermodal conundrum
Intermodal transport has long been considered the industry's golden ticket to growth, but in 2024, it presents a more complex picture. The segment saw a downturn in 2023, hitting its lowest volumes in three years. In June of this year, Class I railroads did report about an 8.7% volume growth in intermodal for the month over 2023. But even those numbers don't get them back to pre-pandemic levels.
However, we remain cautiously optimistic about intermodal’s long-term outlook. One way that Class I railroads could capture market share would be to target a significant volume of single-line traffic that travels between 700 and 1,500 miles and traverses only one railroad. That is a fairly sizable market for trucks right now, and if successfully converted to rail, it will add a significant amount of additional intermodal volume to the railroad’s portfolios.
To successfully compete, railroads will need to offer a compelling value proposition that can respond effectively to trucking’s current capacity surplus and low post-pandemic rates. This requires a delicate balance of pricing strategy, service reliability, and operational efficiency.
Path forward
Railroads have long faced criticism for their perceived inflexibility and reluctance to adapt to shipper needs. However, today's competitive landscape and changing customer expectations are driving rapid transformation in the industry. Class I railroads are actively working to enhance the customer experience, but they face significant challenges. To compete effectively with trucking, they must overcome deeply entrenched negative perceptions about rail shipping. This requires demonstrating unwavering commitment to their shippers and the markets they serve, as well as presenting comprehensive, forward-thinking strategies that showcase their long-term dedication to the industry.
For their part, shippers should reexamine the supply chain solutions they implemented to solve pandemic and post-pandemic challenges. They should take advantage of the current transportation market volatility to scrutinize the rates they currently pay and understand the trade-offs they can make in the marketplace to decrease overall transportation costs. Now's the time to start evaluating modal shifts. Railroads may be hungrier for traffic they didn't want to haul during the pandemic and post-pandemic years, and shippers can take advantage of a contracting truck market to inform their rail negotiations. In some cases, shippers may find that railroads have more appetite to commit to long-term contracts with fixed indices.
As we look to the future, railroads may never recover the bygone coal volumes, and their earnings profiles may be forever changed. Still, the industry's trajectory will be determined by its ability to address these interconnected challenges and opportunities brought about by the turbulence of being an integral part of the global economy. Success will require a multifaceted approach, and what worked for Class I’s in the past likely won’t help them be successful soon. All that said, it is a given that railroads will remain an integral part of North America’s industrial economy for a very long time.
For an island measuring a little less than 14,000 square miles (or about the size of Belgium), Taiwan plays a crucial role in global supply chains, making geopolitical concerns associated with it of keen interest to most major corporations.
Taiwan has essentially acted as an independent nation since 1949, when the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island following the communist takeover of mainland China. Yet China has made no secret of the fact that it wants to bring Taiwan back under its authority—ambitions that were brought to the fore in October when China launched military drills that simulated an attack on the island.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it could have serious political and social consequences that would ripple around the globe. And it would be particularly devastating to our supply chains, says consultant Ashray Lavsi, a principal at the global procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio. He specializes in solving complex supply chain, operations, and procurement problems, with a special focus on resilience. Prior to joining Efficio’s London office in 2017, he worked at XPO Logistics in the U.S. and the Netherlands.
Lavsi spoke recently with David Maloney, Supply Chain Xchange’s group editorial director, about what might happen if China moves to annex Taiwan—what shortages would likely arise, the impact on shipping lanes and ocean freight costs, and what managers should be doing now to prepare for potential disruptions ahead.
It’s no secret that China has ambitions on Taiwan. If China were to attempt to seize control of Taiwan, how would that affect the world’s supply chains?
There would be wide-ranging disruptions around the world. The United States does a lot of trade with both China and Taiwan. For example, the U.S. imports about $470 billion worth of goods from China, while China imports about $124 billion from the U.S. Meanwhile, Taiwan is the No. 9 trading partner for the U.S. So all of this trade could come to a halt, depending on the level of conflict. Supplies would likely be disrupted, and trade routes could be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs.
Furthermore, there would likely be disruptions to trade not just between the U.S. and China, but also across the board. It could very well be that the NATO members get involved, that South Korea gets involved, that Japan gets involved, the Philippines get involved, so it could very quickly spiral into widespread disruptions.
We’ve seen big changes in the way businesses in Hong Kong operate since Britain handed control of Hong Kong over to China nearly 30 years ago. If China were to succeed in bringing Taiwan under its authority, would we see a similar outcome?
Indeed, I would expect so. I read recently that since around 2020, foreign direct investment in Hong Kong has dropped by nearly 50%, from $105 million to $54 million. The drop was primarily because of increased regulatory oversight. There are now a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech as well as tighter control over business operations. Something similar could very well happen in Taiwan if China were to succeed in taking over the island.
As you mentioned, the United States conducts a lot of trade with both Taiwan and China, and both countries have become strategic supply chain partners. Beyond the diplomatic considerations, what would a military or economic conflict mean for the United States?
There is a lot of trade in goods like agricultural products, aircraft, electronic components, and machinery, and our access to all of those items could be cut off. On top of that, China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals [which are crucial for the production of a wide variety of electronic devices]. So any conflict in the region would almost certainly result in many disruptions, particularly in critical sectors like technology and electronics—disruptions that would lead to shortages and increased costs.
Trade routes would also be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs. U.S. companies would need to seek out alternative suppliers for critical materials or components they currently source in China, if they haven’t already. And if they haven’t lined up alternative suppliers, any hostilities could result in a complete halt in production.
What effect would such a move have on the global economy?
It’s been quite a few years since economies have just been localized. Any disruption now has widespread ripple effects across the world. As we discussed, any conflict between the United States and China naturally pulls in countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the NATO countries, and it can very quickly spiral out.
Look at the semiconductor, or chip, shortages. If you recall, back in 2021, those shortages led to almost a half-trillion-dollar loss for the automakers, who lost out on sales of 7.7 million vehicles because they couldn’t meet demand. We could see a repeat of that situation—maybe even on a larger scale.
I found this statistic interesting—we often talk about the semiconductor shortages during the pandemic, but if you look at true production numbers, the actual production of chips went up from 2020, to 2021, to 2022. The shortage was driven not by a drop in production, but rather, by a surge in demand for PCs from people working from home. That demand has since dwindled, but we’d still face a major semiconductor shortage if much of the production were halted. So that’s going to be a very big change, a very big disruption.
Of course, the United States, along with a number of other countries, has taken steps to reduce its exposure to risk by bringing some semiconductor production back to its own shores. But it will take time to get those operations up and running, and their output would still be just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. So what would a takeover of Taiwan mean for the overall semiconductor flow?
It essentially stops, right? Let me paint a picture that illustrates the importance of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry to global manufacturing. Semiconductors go into everything from cars to military equipment to computers to data centers to microwaves—they are in everything around us. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the advanced chips. Just let that sink in: More than 90% of all the advanced chips produced worldwide come from Taiwan, primarily from a big fabrication company called TSMC.
So the complexity and the precision required to make advanced semiconductors, combined with the limited number of companies around the world, make Taiwan’s position unmatched. The second-largest producer after TSMC is South Korean-based Samsung, which produces 18%, so that’s the gap that we are talking about.
As you rightly said, there are efforts by governments across the world to reduce their reliance on Taiwan. For example, TSMC is building three fabrication facilities in Arizona—the third with funding from the U.S. government. The first plant is set to go live next year and the third by 2030. But even once all three plants are up and running, the production volumes won’t be close to what TSMC produces in Taiwan. It’s going to take years to reduce our reliance on production in Taiwan. If that supply is cut off, the ripple effect will be tremendous.
Setting aside the historical and political claims China has made on Taiwan, is Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry a main reason why China has set its sights on it?
It could be. China has been investing heavily in chip production—for instance, today, most, if not all, of the chips in the latest Huawei phones are locally produced in China. But China is still quite a few years behind TSMC. So that’s definitely going to be one of the big factors, right? One article that I found very interesting declared that chips are the new oil. If you control chip production, you control the global market.
Let’s talk about the implications for shipping lanes. If you take a look at the map, you realize that the Taiwan Strait is a very important shipping lane for containerized goods coming out of both China and Taiwan. If China were to institute a military blockade, how would that affect the world’s container flows?
That flow would be affected tremendously. The Taiwan Strait plays a crucial role in global shipping, particularly for goods moving between Asia and the rest of the world. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes, and any blockage would severely disrupt global container flows.
Now let me put that into perspective. Fifty percent of the world’s containerships pass through the Taiwan Strait—50%. That’s a huge number. By comparison, the Suez Canal handles about 20% of global trade. Or to use another measure: 88% of the world’s largest ships by tonnage passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022.
I’ve been reading up on this in the past few months and it seems that a military blockage is a very likely scenario—one that would cripple Taiwan’s economy without a full-scale invasion. So instead of a mounting a full-on attack, China might just block the strait, which would lead to delays in the delivery of goods, affecting global supply chains and causing shortages across Asia and the U.S.
Given the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, should shippers and manufacturers be preparing today for a potential conflict?
Businesses have to begin preparing today. If businesses were to say, “Okay, I’m going to wait until the conflict breaks out, and then figure out what I’ll do,” it will be too late. You’re done. Your production comes to halt. You can no longer satisfy your customer requirements. So proactive measures are an absolute requirement.
What should they do to prepare?
I would urge manufacturers and shippers to take what’s essentially a two-pronged approach.
First, you need to segment and identify your critical components, based on how crucial they are to your production operations and the risk associated with their sources, where they’re coming from. After you segment them, you list your top-priority items—the critical components that you absolutely cannot do without. You then split your supply chain into two, so that you have a much more redundant supply chain built for those critical items and then a second supply chain for everything else.
To build redundancy, you establish multiple suppliers and diversify them geographically. You also build in stringent contingency measures, which could include strategic stockpiling, nearshoring, and friendshoring, which is where you store inventory with an ally or in a friend consortium, as well as buying alternative components wherever possible. So all of those measures need to be put in place for the components that you’ve identified as absolutely critical for your production.
What is the second prong?
The second prong is the need to manage increased costs. There’s no getting away from higher costs, right? If you’re holding more inventory, you have higher inventory carrying costs. And if you’re diversifying your supply base, that means you don’t have as much leverage [with individual suppliers]. You’re also going to be managing multiple supply chains, which requires an increase in human capital because you’ll need more people to manage the more complex supply chains that you’re putting in place.
One way to manage costs could be by implementing strategic sourcing programs across the board that are aimed at mitigating some of the expenses. By taking these steps, manufacturers can safeguard their operations against potential disruptions and ensure continuity.
A lot of U.S. companies have been nearshoring to Mexico, which has now become the United States’ leading trade partner. Is that a simple solution for companies looking to reduce their reliance on Asia?
It is one of the solutions. But you won’t be able to replace your Asian supply base immediately—as with semiconductors, it may take a few years to build out that capacity.
So you need to start stockpiling essential components now—particularly if you won’t be able to find alternatives. You want to make sure that you’re holding the right amount of inventory of the components that you absolutely need. So nearshoring is an option, but you need to be careful what you move to Mexico.
Is that because moving production to Mexico will raise your costs compared to sourcing in Asia?
Yes, production costs will be higher compared to a place like Vietnam, where wages are currently lower than in Mexico. It might reduce the logistics cost, but I think there’s still a net increase overall because you’ll have higher expenses for things like regulatory compliance. Plus you’ll have the one-time cost of setting up the facilities.
Ideally, you’ll never have to face these problems we’ve been talking about, but it’s always better to be prepared.
Editor’s note:This article first appeared in the November 2024 issue of our sister publication DC Velocity.
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Retailers should take advantage of their brick-and-mortar locations not only to satisfy the growing demand for “buy online pickup in store” but also to support microfulfillment efforts for e-commerce.
Retailers are increasingly looking to cut costs, become more efficient, and meet ever-changing consumer demands. But how can they do so? The answer is updating their fulfillment strategy to keep pace with evolving customer expectations. As e-commerce continues to dominate the retail space and same-day delivery has become the norm, retailers must look to strengthen their “buy online pick up in store” (BOPIS) and microfulfillment strategies to stay ahead.
BOPIS allows customers to order online and pick up items at the retailers' brick-and-mortar location, and microfulfillment involves housing a retailer’s products closer to the consumer to improve delivery times. While these strategies each serve different purposes, both are centered around getting the product closer to the consumer to ensure faster fulfillment. By combining the two, retailers will be primed to meet customers’ needs—now and in the future.
The store of the future: meeting customers where they are
While e-commerce has become the top way for many consumers to shop today, building the store of the future does not mean focusing solely on an online fulfillment strategy and abandoning physical stores entirely. Instead, retailers can take advantage of their brick-and-mortar locations, often already situated in “hot spot” areas, to support microfulfillment efforts for e-commerce. These locations can also cater to the growing demand for BOPIS options, with 61% of consumers choosing to shop with a retailer that offers BOPIS over one that does not, according to recent Körber Supply Chain Software research.
When developing a fulfillment strategy, retailers should look to be able to satisfy customer needs at any moment in time. With the surge in same- or next-day shipping, consumers are no longer as interested in walking around a store to locate products or waiting many days for their items to arrive. Whether it’s on their doorstep or at the storefront, customers want their products as quickly as possible. For example, Körber Supply Chain Software found 29% of BOPIS shoppers would like their products to be ready almost immediately or within 30 minutes after placing an order.
Shoppers know which retailers can satisfy their need for quick fulfillment and will likely gravitate towards those companies for their shopping needs. For example, I recently placed a BOPIS order with a retailer, and when I arrived later that afternoon, my order still had not been picked yet. The retailer let me know that though I was currently there, based on their picking process, there were still multiple orders ahead of mine. While we both saw the product on the shelf, they were unable to fulfill my order given the inefficient process, prompting me to question whether I would continue to be loyal to that retailer.
To be successful, the store of the future must leverage technology to make the physical store a powerhouse for BOPIS and microfulfillment. By leveraging tools that provide insights on inventory location and consumer demand, companies can make informed decisions on the best approach for seamless fulfillment. So, how can companies get started with future-proofing their stores
How to develop a winning hybrid-fulfillment strategy
While meeting consumer demand is top of mind for retailers, operational efficiency and cost reduction are also priorities. It is not enough to just deploy BOPIS and microfulfillment; companies must focus on finetuning these strategies to maximize success. Some ways to do so include:
1. Utilize the “only handle it once” (OHIO) method: In a warehouse environment, companies keep a close eye on how much it costs to touch a product before they sell it. Typically, it is most cost-effective and efficient for companies to only handle it once. A similar consideration should be used for fulfilling orders through BOPIS or microfulfillment. For a BOPIS order, this might mean the product goes directly from the backroom of a store to a customer instead of being stocked on the shelf. For microfulfillment, this might mean going from a microfulfillment site directly to the consumers’ door.
2. Deploy solutions for inventory visibility, management, and communication: To successfully fulfill both online and in-person orders, retailers must have full visibility into the inventory within their warehouses and store locations and across the supply chain. From a BOPIS perspective, stores may be competing with in-person shoppers for the same items on the shelf. Therefore, it is key for retailers to fully develop their backroom inventory strategy, which may mean keeping some inventory off the shelves. While it is important for shoppers in store to have access to the full breadth and depth of assortment, it is also important that shoppers who buy online can get their order fulfilled.
Some retailers have already started operating like the store of the future. Reformation, a sustainable clothing store, has deployed an innovative retail concept at their Boston location where they only showcaseone of each garment. If a customer wants to try on an item, they use a tablet to request their size, and a sales associate retrieves the item from the store’s large backroom and brings it directly to the customer’s dressing room. BOPIS could be added to this arrangement, so that customers shopping in the store will have their needs met and customers shopping from home can ensure they will not receive a late order cancellation or delayed fulfillment.
Furthermore, having full visibility into inventory at physical stores can be leveraged on the microfulfillment side as well. Given that brick-and-mortar stores are strategically placed in areas where there is high consumer demand, their backrooms can also function as fulfillment centers for online orders, ensuring that the product gets into the customer’s hands as quickly as possible.
3. Continually analyze fulfillment strategy and fine-tune operations: Consumer demand is always evolving, making it difficult to predict what will be the next shift in expectations. Given this, it is critical for retailers to continually collect and analyze data, such as stock keeping unit (SKU) velocity, to ensure that they have an effective strategy.
With the demand for faster fulfillment, retailers will need to utilize this data to fine-tune their operations and ensure they are able to access the necessary products. To do so, retailers must examine backroom operations to make sure stocking items can readily be picked and staged for pickup. This approach also makes it possible, and easier, for retailers to ship direct to the consumer if they want to provide that option.
Looking ahead: hybrid fulfillment strategies in 2025 and beyond
As we head into 2025, companies are going to increasingly focus on how they serve their customers and ways to stand out among their competitors. If they have not done so already, many major retailers will utilize both BOPIS and microfulfillment to effectively and efficiently meet customers where they are. Looking ahead, customers will continue to demand faster fulfillment and more convenient ways to shop, making it critical for companies to fine-tune their BOPIS and microfulfillment strategies to avoid falling behind. By utilizing the above tips, decision-makers will have the insights they need to properly stock their stores and microfulfillment centers and meet customer needs.
As another potential strike looms at East and Gulf coast ports, nervous retailers are calling on dockworkers union the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) to reach an agreement with port management group the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) before their current labor contract expires on January 15.
The latest call for a quick solution came from the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), which cheered President-elect Donald Trump for his published comments yesterday indicating that he supports the 45,000 dockworkers’ opposition to increased automation for handling shipping containers.
In response, AAFA’s president and CEO, Steve Lamar, issued a statement urging both sides to avoid the major disruption to the American economy that could be caused by a protracted strike. "We urge the ILA to formally return to the negotiating table to finalize a contract with USMX that builds on the well-deserved tentative agreement of a 61.5 percent salary increase. Like our messages to President Biden, we urge President-elect Trump to continue his work to strengthen U.S. docks — by meeting with USMX and continuing work with the ILA — to secure a deal before the January 15 deadline with resolution on the issue of automation,” Lamar said.
While the East and Gulf ports are currently seeing a normal December calm post retail peak and prior to the Lunar New Year, the U.S. West Coast ports are still experiencing significant import volumes, the ITS report said. That high volume may be the result of inventory being pulled forward due to market apprehension about potential tariffs that could come with the beginning of the Trump administration, as well as retailers already compensating for the potential port strike.
“The volumes coming from Asia on the trans-Pacific trade routes are not overwhelming the supply of capacity as spot rates at origin are not being pushed higher,” Paul Brashier, Vice President of Global Supply Chain for ITS Logistics, said in a release. “For the time being, everything seems balanced. That said, if the US West Coast continues to be a release valve for a potential ILA strike supply chain disruption, there is a high risk that both West Coast Port and Rail operations could become overwhelmed.”
Global forklift sales have slumped in 2024, falling short of initial forecasts as a result of the struggling economy in Europe and the slow release of project funding in the U.S., a report from market analyst firm Interact Analysis says.
In response, the London-based firm has reduced its shipment forecast for the year to rise just 0.3%, although it still predicts consistent growth of around 4-5% out to 2034.
The “bleak” figures come as the European economy has stagnated during the second half of 2024, with two of the leading industry sectors for forklifts - automotive and logistics – struggling. In addition, order backlogs from the pandemic have now been absorbed, so order volumes for the global forklift market will be slightly lower than shipment volumes over the next few years, Interact Analysis said.
On a more positive note, 3 million forklifts are forecast to be shipped per year by 2031 as enterprises are forced to reduce their dependence on manual labor. Interact Analysis has observed that major forklift OEMs are continuing with their long-term expansion plans, while other manufacturers that are affected by demand fluctuations are much more cautious with spending on automation projects.
At the same time, the forklift market is seeing a fundamental shift in power sources, with demand for Li-ion battery-powered forklifts showing a growth rate of over 10% while internal combustion engine (ICE) demand shrank by 1% and lead-acid battery-powered forklift fell 7%.
And according to Interact Analysis, those trends will continue, with the report predicting that ICE annual market demand will shrink over 20% from 670,000 units in 2024 to a projected 500,000 units by 2034. And by 2034, Interact Analysis predicts 81% of fully electric forklifts will be powered by li-ion batteries.
The reasons driving that shift include a move in Europe to cleaner alternatives to comply with environmental policies, and a swing in the primary customer base for forklifts from manufacturing to logistics and warehousing, due to the rise of e-commerce. Electric forklift demand is also growing in emerging markets, but for different reasons—labor costs are creating a growing need for automation in factories, especially in China, India, and Eastern Europe. And since lithium-ion battery production is primarily based in Asia, the average cost of equipping forklifts with li-ion batteries is much lower than the rest of the world.