Northeast Freight Time one clock, four readings

The Measurement Nobody Wants

The technology to measure dwell precisely has existed for years. Geofences, gate systems, yard management, engine-derived location — none of it is hard, and much of it is already installed. The software side of this measurement question is often described as employee monitoring software, although the operational issue here is broader than any one tool.

And FMCSA still records that little public data exists, that there is no standard definition, and in 2023 was still asking whether existing systems could measure detention at all. For broader industry reporting and context, see FourKites.

That gap is not technical. It is that precise measurement is unwelcome to almost everyone who could produce it, and the reasons are worth setting out because they explain the state of the field better than any account of the tooling.

Who does not want it

Facilities. A precise, shared record establishes exactly how long they held each truck, which converts a contestable claim into an arithmetic one. Under half of detention charges are currently paid; a shared clock would move that number a long way in one direction.

Carriers, partially. Precise measurement also documents the loads where the driver arrived early, was unavailable when called, or had missing paperwork. A carrier convinced all its detention is the facility's would learn otherwise on some share of visits.

Brokers. Sitting between two parties, holding a margin, with an interest in each side's version remaining slightly ambiguous.

And software vendors, oddly. A genuinely standard measurement would commoditise a feature currently sold as differentiation.

Nobody is conspiring. Each party is rationally uninterested in an instrument that would resolve a dispute it currently expects to win or to survive.

Who does want it

Drivers, whose time is the thing being disputed and who have the least influence over any of it.

Regulators, for the safety association, which is why FMCSA keeps commissioning studies.

And, in principle, everyone, since the industry spends more on disputing these charges than it transfers. The collective interest is clear and no individual party's interest points there.

That is a recognisable shape. It is why the gap persists despite being technically trivial and expensively annoying.

What that predicts

No industry-wide standard is coming. No agency has jurisdiction over commercial time definitions, and no group of participants has an incentive to converge.

Bilateral agreements will keep outperforming. Two parties who define the terms between them get most of the benefit, without needing anyone else to agree.

And regulation will keep arriving through the billing side rather than the measurement side. The FMC did not define the time; it required the invoice to show the calculation. That is the tractable lever, and it is where the next intervention will come from too.

What it means for you

Do not wait for a standard. Define it in your own contracts and you have the benefit within a quarter.

Expect resistance to a shared clock, and recognise it as commercial rather than technical. A facility declining to share gate data is not being difficult about software.

And be honest about your own side of it. Measuring properly will show some visits where the delay was yours. A party that only measures the other side's failures has built an instrument, not a measurement.

The uncomfortable version

The most useful thing anyone could do for this subject is publish facility-level dwell distributions. It would create the benchmark that does not exist, let carriers price accurately, and give receivers a reason to improve.

Nobody will, because the data is commercially sensitive and legally awkward, and the first mover would be publishing evidence against its own customers.

So the field will continue to have excellent instruments, no agreed definition, and a billion dollars a year moving through disputes about it. That is not a failure of technology and it will not be solved by more of it.

The short version