Drayage Services Market by Freight Type (Full Container Load, Less Than Container Load), Container Type (Dry Container, Flat Rack Container, Open Top Container), Service Type, Fleet Ownership, Port Type - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Drayage Services Market was valued at USD 3.90 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 4.26 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 9.19%, reaching USD 7.88 billion by 2032.
Setting the stage for drayage strategy with a clear view of operational complexity, freight and container variations, and evolving service expectations
The introduction contextualizes drayage as a linchpin service within global logistics networks, responsible for the first and last mile movement of containers between ports, rail terminals, and inland distribution points. Driven by shifts in trade flows, port congestion, and supply chain resilience priorities, drayage operations have evolved from simple short-haul transfers into complex, technology-enabled services that mediate capacity, regulatory, and environmental constraints. This section frames the operational and strategic issues that transport leaders, shippers, and logistics providers must confront to maintain fluidity across maritime and intermodal gateways.
Understanding the contemporary drayage landscape requires connecting operational realities with commercial decision-making. The introduction highlights how freight type distinctions such as Full Container Load and Less Than Container Load influence asset utilization and routing choices, how container types including Dry Container, Flat Rack Container, Open Top Container, and Refrigerated Container impose different handling, equipment, and scheduling demands, and how service models from Door To Door and Door To Port through to Intermodal configurations and Port To Door deliveries change cost-to-serve and customer expectations. This foundation sets expectations for the deeper analyses that follow and underscores the imperative of integrated planning across terminals, trucking fleets, and inland logistics partners.
Examining how technological, regulatory, modal and sustainability transitions are redefining operational models, capacity allocation and strategic partnerships in drayage
This section examines transformative shifts that are reshaping how drayage is planned, executed, and managed across multimodal supply chains. Technology adoption-from route optimization and electronic proof-of-delivery to real-time yard visibility and dynamic dispatch platforms-is altering capacity allocation and customer transparency, while digital freight matching is enabling more responsive use of non-asset-based capacity and reducing empty miles. At the same time, decarbonization imperatives and stricter emissions regulations are accelerating the deployment of low- and zero-emission drayage fleets, prompting new investment patterns and influencing terminal access rules and tolling structures.
Concurrently, network design is responding to broader trade and logistics disruptions: intermodal options like Road Rail and Road Sea are gaining attention for resilience and cost control, port authorities are implementing congestion mitigation programs and appointment systems that affect dwell time, and cargo owners are diversifying sourcing and inventory strategies that change volume seasonality. These changes are interlinked; regulatory signals influence fleet renewal timelines, technological platforms alter the mix between asset-based and non-asset-based operators, and shifting container and freight type mixes drive new equipment and handling protocols. Together, these forces compel stakeholders to rethink partnerships, commercial contracts, and investments in automation and workforce capabilities.
Analyzing how evolving tariff policies are altering trade corridors, container type demand, and fleet deployment strategies across drayage ecosystems
Policy changes and tariff adjustments have a cascading impact across drayage operations by altering trade flows, port call patterns, and the distribution of cargo between routes and terminals. Rising tariff pressures and new trade measures influence importer behavior, sometimes prompting the rerouting of cargo to alternative sourcing locations or transshipment hubs, which in turn reshapes drayage demand at specific gateways. These dynamics require drayage providers to adapt their geographic coverage, asset deployment, and contractual terms to maintain service continuity and cost-effectiveness.
When tariffs affect the composition of inbound and outbound cargo, container type utilization and freight type mixes can shift significantly. For example, a change in commodity flows may increase demand for refrigerated container drayage or for flat rack and open top handling, necessitating changes in equipment allocation and handling protocols. Similarly, increased volatility in demand incentivizes a greater reliance on non-asset-based models such as freight brokers and third party logistics providers to absorb peaks, while asset-based fleets may focus on long-term contracts and dedicated lanes. Ultimately, tariff-driven trade adjustments elevate the importance of scenario planning, flexible capacity arrangements, and enhanced collaboration across ports, carriers, and inland operators to ensure continuity of service and competitive responsiveness.
Unpacking segmentation-driven operational and commercial levers across freight and container types, service configurations, port modalities, fleet models and customer archetypes
Segmentation analysis reveals meaningful differences in demand drivers, operational constraints, and commercial models across freight type, container type, service type, port type, fleet ownership, and customer type. When segmented by freight type across Full Container Load and Less Than Container Load, asset utilization and scheduling complexity diverge, with LCL aggregations demanding more intricate consolidation and deconsolidation flows and FCL movements prioritizing speed and directness. Container type distinctions such as Dry Container, Flat Rack Container, Open Top Container, and Refrigerated Container each necessitate unique handling protocols, equipment investments, and regulatory compliance efforts that affect operating costs and service reliability.
Service type segmentation yields critical planning insights: Door To Door and Door To Port services emphasize integrated scheduling and customer experience, while Port To Door offerings concentrate on predictable export and hinterland flows; intermodal solutions, whether Road Rail or Road Sea, introduce transfer points that must be optimized to reduce dwell and handoff friction. Port type differences between Rail Port Drayage and Sea Port Drayage influence transit distances, terminal appointment regimes, and the rhythm of pickup and return cycles. Fleet ownership models divide along Asset Based and Non Asset Based structures, with the latter including Freight Brokers and Third Party Logistics Providers; each model shapes risk allocation, pricing strategy, and capacity elasticity. Finally, customer type segmentation across Manufacturer, Retailer, and Third Party Logistics clients reveals distinct service expectations and contract structures, with manufacturers often prioritizing inbound raw material reliability, retailers focused on timing for shelf availability, and third party logistics providers combining multiple client requirements into aggregated service bundles.
These segmentation lenses provide a framework for tailoring commercial offerings, investment decisions, and operational playbooks. They enable providers to identify which combinations of freight and container types, service modalities, and fleet ownership structures align with strategic objectives and operational strengths, while also highlighting where targeted capabilities-such as refrigerated handling or intermodal coordination-can create differentiated value propositions for specific customer types.
Exploring how diverse regional infrastructures, regulatory regimes and modal preferences are influencing drayage operations and strategic investments globally
Regional dynamics shape drayage priorities through infrastructure endowments, regulatory regimes, labor market conditions, and modal balances. In the Americas, gateways are contending with port congestion, inland distribution realignments, and investment in electrification pilots for drayage fleets, while intermodal corridors are being optimized to mitigate coastal concentration and improve resiliency. Stakeholders in this region are balancing investments in terminal productivity with the need for flexible capacity arrangements to serve diverse trade lanes and seasonal volumes.
Across Europe, Middle East & Africa, differing regulatory frameworks, emissions mandates, and urban access restrictions create a mosaic of operational requirements that drayage providers must navigate. In dense European port environments, appointment systems and stringent emissions zones drive rapid adoption of cleaner vehicles and terminal automation, while in other parts of EMEA, infrastructure upgrades and hub development are determining the pace of intermodal adoption. In the Asia-Pacific region, rapid port modernization, expansion of rail freight corridors, and the prevalence of both large transshipment hubs and sprawling domestic manufacturing centres create a complex landscape. Providers operating across these regions must therefore calibrate fleet composition, technology investments, and contract models to local conditions while maintaining cross-regional consistency in service standards and data interoperability.
Assessing how technology-enabled service differentiation, strategic partnerships and hybrid fleet models are defining competitive advantage among drayage providers
Competitive positioning among leading firms hinges on a combination of service breadth, technology integration, asset strategy, and partnerships across terminals and inland carriers. Companies that have successfully integrated digital platforms for visibility, dynamic pricing, and yard management are better positioned to reduce dwell times, improve turn rates, and deliver consistent customer experiences. Strategic alliances with terminal operators, rail providers, and third party logistics firms extend reach into new corridors and enable managed capacity during peak periods without proportionate increases in asset exposure.
Differentiation also emerges from specialization: firms that invest in temperature-controlled handling capabilities, heavy-lift and oversize handling for flat rack and open top containers, or dedicated lanes for high-volume shippers can command premium service terms and stronger contractual commitments. Non-asset-based players that act as aggregators and brokers provide elasticity and coverage breadth, while asset-based providers emphasize reliability and control. Leading companies combine these strengths by offering hybrid models-maintaining core owned capacity for strategic lanes while leveraging broker networks for spot needs-supported by robust analytics and customer-facing digital tools that simplify procurement and operational coordination.
Prioritizing pragmatic investments in digital visibility, flexible capacity mixes and sustainability-linked fleet renewal to strengthen resilience and customer value
Industry leaders should prioritize a balanced investment approach that accelerates technology adoption, strengthens modal integration, and aligns fleet transition plans with regulatory timelines. Implementing interoperable digital platforms that provide end-to-end visibility from terminal gate-in to last-mile delivery will reduce friction, shorten cycle times, and create measurable gains in productivity. These platforms should support appointment management, dynamic dispatch, and integration with rail and sea schedules to optimize handoffs and minimize dwell.
Leaders must also establish flexible commercial arrangements that blend asset-backed lanes with scalable non-asset capacity to manage demand volatility effectively. Investing in low- and zero-emission vehicles should be sequenced with access incentives and terminal readiness to maximize ROI while minimizing service disruption. Additionally, forming deeper partnerships with port authorities, rail operators, and temperature-control specialists will enable providers to capture value from specialized container types and intermodal flows. Finally, developing workforce upskilling programs focused on yard automation, digital tools, and safety protocols will preserve operational resilience amid technological and regulatory change.
Describing the rigorous multi-method research approach that triangulates primary interviews, secondary analysis and segmentation-based operational benchmarking
This research employed a multi-method approach combining primary interviews, secondary validation, and cross-functional analysis to ensure findings are grounded in operational reality. Primary inputs included structured conversations with port operators, drayage carriers, third party logistics providers, shippers across manufacturing and retail verticals, and equipment suppliers to capture first-hand perspectives on capacity constraints, routing strategies, and service expectations. Secondary sources encompassed industry white papers, regulatory publications, terminal performance reports, and vendor technical briefs to validate trends and provide context on technology and infrastructure developments.
Analytical methods integrated qualitative syntheses with operational metric benchmarking, scenario mapping, and capability gap analysis. Segmentation layers-covering distinctions such as Full Container Load versus Less Than Container Load and container types from Dry to Refrigerated and Flat Rack-were evaluated for their operational implications. Service type assessments spanned Door To Door, Door To Port, Intermodal flows including Road Rail and Road Sea, and Port To Door delivery patterns, while port type analysis differentiated Rail Port Drayage from Sea Port Drayage. Fleet ownership structures were examined across Asset Based and Non Asset Based models, including Freight Broker and Third Party Logistics Provider roles. Regional assessments covered Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific contexts to ensure geographic relevance. The methodology emphasized triangulation across data sources to provide robust, actionable conclusions.
Concluding perspective on why integrated digitalization, fleet strategy and partnership models are essential to secure reliable and sustainable drayage operations
In conclusion, drayage will remain a critical operational nexus for global trade, demanding that providers and shippers rethink traditional assumptions about capacity, technology, and partnerships. The convergence of regulatory pressure, sustainability goals, and digital transformation is accelerating a shift toward more integrated, flexible, and data-driven drayage models. Providers that adopt interoperable technologies, pursue hybrid fleet strategies, and develop specialized capabilities for diverse container and freight types will be best placed to capture commercial opportunities and mitigate operational risk.
Decision-makers should treat the current environment as an inflection point rather than a transient disturbance. By aligning investment priorities with regional nuances, customer needs, and evolving policy signals, industry participants can turn disruption into competitive advantage. Continuous scenario planning, targeted partnerships, and disciplined execution on technology and fleet modernization will be essential to sustaining service reliability and cost-effectiveness in the years ahead.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Setting the stage for drayage strategy with a clear view of operational complexity, freight and container variations, and evolving service expectations
The introduction contextualizes drayage as a linchpin service within global logistics networks, responsible for the first and last mile movement of containers between ports, rail terminals, and inland distribution points. Driven by shifts in trade flows, port congestion, and supply chain resilience priorities, drayage operations have evolved from simple short-haul transfers into complex, technology-enabled services that mediate capacity, regulatory, and environmental constraints. This section frames the operational and strategic issues that transport leaders, shippers, and logistics providers must confront to maintain fluidity across maritime and intermodal gateways.
Understanding the contemporary drayage landscape requires connecting operational realities with commercial decision-making. The introduction highlights how freight type distinctions such as Full Container Load and Less Than Container Load influence asset utilization and routing choices, how container types including Dry Container, Flat Rack Container, Open Top Container, and Refrigerated Container impose different handling, equipment, and scheduling demands, and how service models from Door To Door and Door To Port through to Intermodal configurations and Port To Door deliveries change cost-to-serve and customer expectations. This foundation sets expectations for the deeper analyses that follow and underscores the imperative of integrated planning across terminals, trucking fleets, and inland logistics partners.
Examining how technological, regulatory, modal and sustainability transitions are redefining operational models, capacity allocation and strategic partnerships in drayage
This section examines transformative shifts that are reshaping how drayage is planned, executed, and managed across multimodal supply chains. Technology adoption-from route optimization and electronic proof-of-delivery to real-time yard visibility and dynamic dispatch platforms-is altering capacity allocation and customer transparency, while digital freight matching is enabling more responsive use of non-asset-based capacity and reducing empty miles. At the same time, decarbonization imperatives and stricter emissions regulations are accelerating the deployment of low- and zero-emission drayage fleets, prompting new investment patterns and influencing terminal access rules and tolling structures.
Concurrently, network design is responding to broader trade and logistics disruptions: intermodal options like Road Rail and Road Sea are gaining attention for resilience and cost control, port authorities are implementing congestion mitigation programs and appointment systems that affect dwell time, and cargo owners are diversifying sourcing and inventory strategies that change volume seasonality. These changes are interlinked; regulatory signals influence fleet renewal timelines, technological platforms alter the mix between asset-based and non-asset-based operators, and shifting container and freight type mixes drive new equipment and handling protocols. Together, these forces compel stakeholders to rethink partnerships, commercial contracts, and investments in automation and workforce capabilities.
Analyzing how evolving tariff policies are altering trade corridors, container type demand, and fleet deployment strategies across drayage ecosystems
Policy changes and tariff adjustments have a cascading impact across drayage operations by altering trade flows, port call patterns, and the distribution of cargo between routes and terminals. Rising tariff pressures and new trade measures influence importer behavior, sometimes prompting the rerouting of cargo to alternative sourcing locations or transshipment hubs, which in turn reshapes drayage demand at specific gateways. These dynamics require drayage providers to adapt their geographic coverage, asset deployment, and contractual terms to maintain service continuity and cost-effectiveness.
When tariffs affect the composition of inbound and outbound cargo, container type utilization and freight type mixes can shift significantly. For example, a change in commodity flows may increase demand for refrigerated container drayage or for flat rack and open top handling, necessitating changes in equipment allocation and handling protocols. Similarly, increased volatility in demand incentivizes a greater reliance on non-asset-based models such as freight brokers and third party logistics providers to absorb peaks, while asset-based fleets may focus on long-term contracts and dedicated lanes. Ultimately, tariff-driven trade adjustments elevate the importance of scenario planning, flexible capacity arrangements, and enhanced collaboration across ports, carriers, and inland operators to ensure continuity of service and competitive responsiveness.
Unpacking segmentation-driven operational and commercial levers across freight and container types, service configurations, port modalities, fleet models and customer archetypes
Segmentation analysis reveals meaningful differences in demand drivers, operational constraints, and commercial models across freight type, container type, service type, port type, fleet ownership, and customer type. When segmented by freight type across Full Container Load and Less Than Container Load, asset utilization and scheduling complexity diverge, with LCL aggregations demanding more intricate consolidation and deconsolidation flows and FCL movements prioritizing speed and directness. Container type distinctions such as Dry Container, Flat Rack Container, Open Top Container, and Refrigerated Container each necessitate unique handling protocols, equipment investments, and regulatory compliance efforts that affect operating costs and service reliability.
Service type segmentation yields critical planning insights: Door To Door and Door To Port services emphasize integrated scheduling and customer experience, while Port To Door offerings concentrate on predictable export and hinterland flows; intermodal solutions, whether Road Rail or Road Sea, introduce transfer points that must be optimized to reduce dwell and handoff friction. Port type differences between Rail Port Drayage and Sea Port Drayage influence transit distances, terminal appointment regimes, and the rhythm of pickup and return cycles. Fleet ownership models divide along Asset Based and Non Asset Based structures, with the latter including Freight Brokers and Third Party Logistics Providers; each model shapes risk allocation, pricing strategy, and capacity elasticity. Finally, customer type segmentation across Manufacturer, Retailer, and Third Party Logistics clients reveals distinct service expectations and contract structures, with manufacturers often prioritizing inbound raw material reliability, retailers focused on timing for shelf availability, and third party logistics providers combining multiple client requirements into aggregated service bundles.
These segmentation lenses provide a framework for tailoring commercial offerings, investment decisions, and operational playbooks. They enable providers to identify which combinations of freight and container types, service modalities, and fleet ownership structures align with strategic objectives and operational strengths, while also highlighting where targeted capabilities-such as refrigerated handling or intermodal coordination-can create differentiated value propositions for specific customer types.
Exploring how diverse regional infrastructures, regulatory regimes and modal preferences are influencing drayage operations and strategic investments globally
Regional dynamics shape drayage priorities through infrastructure endowments, regulatory regimes, labor market conditions, and modal balances. In the Americas, gateways are contending with port congestion, inland distribution realignments, and investment in electrification pilots for drayage fleets, while intermodal corridors are being optimized to mitigate coastal concentration and improve resiliency. Stakeholders in this region are balancing investments in terminal productivity with the need for flexible capacity arrangements to serve diverse trade lanes and seasonal volumes.
Across Europe, Middle East & Africa, differing regulatory frameworks, emissions mandates, and urban access restrictions create a mosaic of operational requirements that drayage providers must navigate. In dense European port environments, appointment systems and stringent emissions zones drive rapid adoption of cleaner vehicles and terminal automation, while in other parts of EMEA, infrastructure upgrades and hub development are determining the pace of intermodal adoption. In the Asia-Pacific region, rapid port modernization, expansion of rail freight corridors, and the prevalence of both large transshipment hubs and sprawling domestic manufacturing centres create a complex landscape. Providers operating across these regions must therefore calibrate fleet composition, technology investments, and contract models to local conditions while maintaining cross-regional consistency in service standards and data interoperability.
Assessing how technology-enabled service differentiation, strategic partnerships and hybrid fleet models are defining competitive advantage among drayage providers
Competitive positioning among leading firms hinges on a combination of service breadth, technology integration, asset strategy, and partnerships across terminals and inland carriers. Companies that have successfully integrated digital platforms for visibility, dynamic pricing, and yard management are better positioned to reduce dwell times, improve turn rates, and deliver consistent customer experiences. Strategic alliances with terminal operators, rail providers, and third party logistics firms extend reach into new corridors and enable managed capacity during peak periods without proportionate increases in asset exposure.
Differentiation also emerges from specialization: firms that invest in temperature-controlled handling capabilities, heavy-lift and oversize handling for flat rack and open top containers, or dedicated lanes for high-volume shippers can command premium service terms and stronger contractual commitments. Non-asset-based players that act as aggregators and brokers provide elasticity and coverage breadth, while asset-based providers emphasize reliability and control. Leading companies combine these strengths by offering hybrid models-maintaining core owned capacity for strategic lanes while leveraging broker networks for spot needs-supported by robust analytics and customer-facing digital tools that simplify procurement and operational coordination.
Prioritizing pragmatic investments in digital visibility, flexible capacity mixes and sustainability-linked fleet renewal to strengthen resilience and customer value
Industry leaders should prioritize a balanced investment approach that accelerates technology adoption, strengthens modal integration, and aligns fleet transition plans with regulatory timelines. Implementing interoperable digital platforms that provide end-to-end visibility from terminal gate-in to last-mile delivery will reduce friction, shorten cycle times, and create measurable gains in productivity. These platforms should support appointment management, dynamic dispatch, and integration with rail and sea schedules to optimize handoffs and minimize dwell.
Leaders must also establish flexible commercial arrangements that blend asset-backed lanes with scalable non-asset capacity to manage demand volatility effectively. Investing in low- and zero-emission vehicles should be sequenced with access incentives and terminal readiness to maximize ROI while minimizing service disruption. Additionally, forming deeper partnerships with port authorities, rail operators, and temperature-control specialists will enable providers to capture value from specialized container types and intermodal flows. Finally, developing workforce upskilling programs focused on yard automation, digital tools, and safety protocols will preserve operational resilience amid technological and regulatory change.
Describing the rigorous multi-method research approach that triangulates primary interviews, secondary analysis and segmentation-based operational benchmarking
This research employed a multi-method approach combining primary interviews, secondary validation, and cross-functional analysis to ensure findings are grounded in operational reality. Primary inputs included structured conversations with port operators, drayage carriers, third party logistics providers, shippers across manufacturing and retail verticals, and equipment suppliers to capture first-hand perspectives on capacity constraints, routing strategies, and service expectations. Secondary sources encompassed industry white papers, regulatory publications, terminal performance reports, and vendor technical briefs to validate trends and provide context on technology and infrastructure developments.
Analytical methods integrated qualitative syntheses with operational metric benchmarking, scenario mapping, and capability gap analysis. Segmentation layers-covering distinctions such as Full Container Load versus Less Than Container Load and container types from Dry to Refrigerated and Flat Rack-were evaluated for their operational implications. Service type assessments spanned Door To Door, Door To Port, Intermodal flows including Road Rail and Road Sea, and Port To Door delivery patterns, while port type analysis differentiated Rail Port Drayage from Sea Port Drayage. Fleet ownership structures were examined across Asset Based and Non Asset Based models, including Freight Broker and Third Party Logistics Provider roles. Regional assessments covered Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific contexts to ensure geographic relevance. The methodology emphasized triangulation across data sources to provide robust, actionable conclusions.
Concluding perspective on why integrated digitalization, fleet strategy and partnership models are essential to secure reliable and sustainable drayage operations
In conclusion, drayage will remain a critical operational nexus for global trade, demanding that providers and shippers rethink traditional assumptions about capacity, technology, and partnerships. The convergence of regulatory pressure, sustainability goals, and digital transformation is accelerating a shift toward more integrated, flexible, and data-driven drayage models. Providers that adopt interoperable technologies, pursue hybrid fleet strategies, and develop specialized capabilities for diverse container and freight types will be best placed to capture commercial opportunities and mitigate operational risk.
Decision-makers should treat the current environment as an inflection point rather than a transient disturbance. By aligning investment priorities with regional nuances, customer needs, and evolving policy signals, industry participants can turn disruption into competitive advantage. Continuous scenario planning, targeted partnerships, and disciplined execution on technology and fleet modernization will be essential to sustaining service reliability and cost-effectiveness in the years ahead.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
190 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Adoption of zero-emission electric drayage trucks to meet stringent port emission regulations
- 5.2. Implementation of AI-driven route optimization platforms to reduce port dwelling times
- 5.3. Integration of blockchain-based cargo tracking systems for enhanced supply chain transparency
- 5.4. Expansion of digital freight matching marketplaces to address drayage capacity shortages
- 5.5. Development of smart port community platforms enabling real-time collaboration among stakeholders
- 5.6. Deployment of autonomous yard vehicles and cranes for increased operational efficiency at terminals
- 5.7. Impact of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding on drayage terminal modernization projects
- 5.8. Adoption of dynamic congestion pricing models to incentivize off-peak drayage movements
- 5.9. Strategic partnerships between drayage providers and 3PLs to enhance last mile delivery resilience
- 5.10. Implementation of predictive maintenance analytics for major drayage fleet uptime optimization
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Drayage Services Market, by Freight Type
- 8.1. Full Container Load
- 8.2. Less Than Container Load
- 9. Drayage Services Market, by Container Type
- 9.1. Dry Container
- 9.2. Flat Rack Container
- 9.3. Open Top Container
- 9.4. Refrigerated Container
- 10. Drayage Services Market, by Service Type
- 10.1. Door To Door
- 10.2. Door To Port
- 10.3. Intermodal
- 10.3.1. Road Rail
- 10.3.2. Road Sea
- 10.4. Port To Door
- 11. Drayage Services Market, by Fleet Ownership
- 11.1. Asset Based
- 11.2. Non Asset Based
- 11.2.1. Freight Broker
- 11.2.2. Third Party Logistics Provider
- 12. Drayage Services Market, by Port Type
- 12.1. Rail Port Drayage
- 12.2. Sea Port Drayage
- 13. Drayage Services Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Drayage Services Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Drayage Services Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Hub Group, Inc.
- 16.3.2. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.
- 16.3.3. Pasha Distribution Services, Inc.
- 16.3.4. Pacific 9 Transportation, Inc.
- 16.3.5. Port Logistics Group, Inc.
- 16.3.6. Clopton Truck Lines, Inc.
- 16.3.7. Seafront Transportation Group, LLC
- 16.3.8. RoadOne Intermoda Logistics, Inc.
- 16.3.9. APL Logistics Ltd.
- 16.3.10. SEKO Logistics, Inc.
- 16.3.11. XPO Logistics, Inc.
- 16.3.12. Schneider Electric SE
- 16.3.13. Evans Network of Companies
- 16.3.14. IMC Companies
- 16.3.15. ContainerPort Group
- 16.3.16. Swift Intermodal
- 16.3.17. NFI
- 16.3.18. Universal Intermodal Services
- 16.3.19. Forward Air
- 16.3.20. ITS ConGlobal
- 16.3.21. Landstar System
- 16.3.22. C.R. England
- 16.3.23. Marten Transport
- 16.3.24. Bison Transport
- 16.3.25. Cowan Systems
- 16.3.26. Canada Drayage Inc.
- 16.3.27. Paper Transport
- 16.3.28. G&D Integrated
- 16.3.29. Interlog USA
- 16.3.30. Boa Logistics LLC
- 16.3.31. Pace Global Logistics
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
