Per Loaded Mile, Not Per Mile

Fifth article in this silo, and the first where we could not find a primary source worth the name. That turned out to be the story.

The Verdict, Stated First

Five claims, in descending order of confidence.

One. The published figures disagree by roughly a factor of five, which we establish by quoting them side by side.

Two. Neither end is obviously wrong. On our own arithmetic the low figure reconciles once unitemised costs are allowed for, and the high figures describe larger operations.

Three. The most-cited benchmark is United States data in United States dollars, quoted to Canadian readers without adjustment.

Four. On our own arithmetic the loaded-mile adjustment is large, adding 17.6 percent to true cost at 15 percent deadhead.

Five. And on our own arithmetic utilisation only dilutes the fixed half, which is a smaller argument than the industry makes for it.

The fourth is the one that changes a bid, ours. An operator quoting against a cost per total mile is bidding below cost on every load and will never see it in a fuel bill.

Two of the five rest on sources and three on arithmetic, ours, which is the reverse of the usual balance in this silo and follows directly from what we could and could not obtain.

An Unusual Article For This Silo

A framing note, because this piece is built differently from the others. Ours.

Four observations.

The other articles in this silo rest on a statute, a regulator or a rate table. This one has no equivalent, because operating cost is a market fact rather than a legislated one.

We searched for a Canadian primary source and did not find one. What exists is commercial content citing other commercial content, frequently circling back to a single American research report.

So we have written the article the evidence supports. It documents the disagreement, explains what causes it, and supplies arithmetic a reader can run on their own records.

Which we think is more useful than a number, ours. A benchmark you cannot verify is worse than an arithmetic you can, and this topic is the clearest case of that we have met.

Our Grades For These Claims

Applying the scheme this publication uses throughout. This is the weakest-sourced article in this silo, and the grades say so.

Grade A for the existence of the disagreement, since we obtained all the sources and quote them directly.

Grade A for our own arithmetic, which depends on no source and is checkable.

Grade D for every dollar figure attributed to a source. All of them come from commercial blogs, vendor sites, a factoring company and an immigration advisory page.

Grade D-minus for anything we describe as an industry average. We did not obtain a single primary dataset.

That grading is the article's argument rather than an apology, ours. If we cannot verify these figures with a research desk and a full day, an owner-operator reading a blog on a phone cannot either.

And the absence itself is worth recording, ours. A national industry moving most of the country's freight has no publicly available operating cost benchmark we could find, which is a gap somebody with better access than us should fill.

A Note On Method

Everything here is checked to 29 August 2026.

We obtained nine commercial sources publishing cost or income figures for owner-operators, five of them addressed specifically to a Canadian audience[1][3][4][5][6][9].

We did not obtain the American Transportation Research Institute's Operational Costs of Trucking report, which several of these sources cite as their basis. Every figure we attribute to it is therefore at second hand.

We found no Statistics Canada or Canadian industry association dataset giving operating cost per kilometre, and we searched for one.

All arithmetic is ours. Every figure in our worked examples is invented except where we identify a source and grade it.

This article discusses operating costs and is not tax, accounting or business advice. An operator should compute their own figures from their own records.

The Spread

The four published figures, set beside each other. Ours, from sources we grade poorly and identify.

A trucking statistics site: net $22,494 to $27,494 on $155,000 gross, which it describes as 14.5 to 17.8 percent of gross[1].

An immigration advisory page: net approximately CAD 60,000 to 120,000 after fuel, maintenance, insurance and taxes[9].

A Canadian driver-pay site: owner-operators gross $130,000 to $220,000, netting $65,000 to $110,000 after fuel, maintenance and fixed costs[3].

A factoring company, citing a driver business services firm: take-home of roughly US$71,800 in 2025[7].

Four observations.

The low figure is roughly one fifth of the high figure, for the same occupation in the same year.

All four are presented with equal confidence and none carries an interval, a sample size or a methodology note.

Two of the four are addressed to Canadian readers. One of those two is an immigration advisory site, which is not an operating-cost authority by any reading.

And a prospective owner-operator will read one of them, ours. Which one they read determines whether the business looks viable, and there is nothing on the page to help them choose.

The decision is also close to irreversible at that point, ours. Buying a tractor commits six figures against a revenue expectation, and the expectation was formed from whichever page ranked highest that week.

We Tried To Reconcile Them

Our own arithmetic, testing whether the low figure is defensible.

The source giving $22,494 to $27,494 itemises four costs against $155,000 of gross: fuel $48,800, maintenance $18,900, truck payments $18,000 and insurance $13,500[1].

Those four total $99,200, leaving $55,800. The stated net is $22,494 to $27,494, so a further $28,306 to $33,306 of cost is implied and not itemised.

Four observations.

That residual is entirely plausible. Permits, tolls, tires, factoring fees, parking, truck washes, administration and taxes would comfortably occupy it.

So the low figure is not wrong. It is an arithmetically coherent picture of a truck grossing $155,000.

The higher figures are also not wrong, because they attach to different revenue. One Canadian source describes a full-time single-tractor operation grossing $250,000 to $350,000 on 100,000 to 130,000 miles at an all-in rate of $2.50 to $3.00 per mile[4].

And a truck grossing $300,000 nets differently from one grossing $155,000, ours, which is obvious once stated and is stated nowhere.

Nor are the two grosses reconcilable by effort alone, ours. The gap is roughly double, and doubling revenue on one tractor requires a different lane structure, a different freight type or a different rate environment rather than longer days.

They Are Describing Different Trucks

The resolution, and it is more useful than picking a winner. Ours.

Four observations.

The spread is not a disagreement about facts. It is four descriptions of different operations, presented as though they were describing one thing.

The variables that move the answer are all unstated: annual mileage, whether the operator is leased to a carrier or independent, freight type, base province and equipment age.

One source is explicit about one of them, to its credit. Operators leased to a carrier gross at the lower end because the carrier takes a percentage for dispatch, insurance and administration[4].

Which means the useful question is not what the average is, ours. It is which of these operations resembles yours, and no published figure can answer that.

And the sources cannot help with that question even in principle, ours, because none of them states which operation it is describing. A figure with no stated conditions cannot be matched to a reader's conditions.

The Currency Problem

A methodological issue running through most of this literature.

The figure cited most often is that the average cost of operating a truck was $2.26 per mile in 2024, from the American Transportation Research Institute's operational costs report, with non-fuel operating costs at $1.779 per mile[1][2]. One source records the underlying sample as 178,091 Class 8 tractors and 14.08 billion miles[1].

Four observations, ours.

That is a large and serious dataset, and nothing here is a criticism of it. Our concern is entirely with how it travels.

It is American data in American dollars, and we saw it quoted to Canadian readers without a currency note or a jurisdiction note.

The components that differ across the border are exactly the large ones. Fuel taxes, insurance markets, tolls and driver wage structures are not comparable, and one source itself records regional variation of 16.8 percent within the United States alone[1].

And we did not obtain the report, ours, so we cannot say whether it addresses Canadian operations. A Canadian reader should treat any $2.26 figure as unconverted and unadjusted until they check.

The conversion alone is material before any structural adjustment, ours. A figure in United States dollars is a materially different number in Canadian dollars, and none of the pages quoting it to Canadians said which currency they meant.

Why A Benchmark Cannot Help You

The structural argument, ours, and it is the reason for the rest of this article.

Four observations.

A cost-per-mile benchmark answers what other people spend. A bidding decision requires what you spend, and the two coincide only by accident.

The dispersion is enormous and is documented in the sources themselves. One reports fuel at 20 to 35 percent of total operating costs[6], which is a range wide enough to change the whole answer.

Another gives a Canadian per-kilometre cost table with fuel between $0.53 and $0.76 and insurance between $0.08 and $0.16[5], so the published ranges themselves span a factor of two on the two largest items.

And a range that wide is not a benchmark, ours. It is a statement that the answer depends on your circumstances, which is true and is not what a reader takes from it.

A reader takes the midpoint, ours, which is the one value in the range with no evidence behind it at all.

A reader takes the midpoint, ours, which is the one value in the range with no evidence behind it at all.

Loaded Miles Are Not Total Miles

The adjustment this article exists for. Ours, and almost nothing we read mentions it.

Four observations.

You are paid per loaded mile. A rate of $2.60 a mile is $2.60 for the miles between pickup and delivery.

You incur cost per total mile. Fuel, tires, maintenance and hours accrue on the empty run to the next pickup exactly as they do under load.

So a cost per mile computed as total annual cost divided by total annual miles is not the number to bid against, and it is the number every calculator produces.

The correction is one division and is set out below. Divide the cost per total mile by one minus the deadhead proportion, and compare rates against that.

One reason the omission is so widespread, ours. Every cost-per-mile calculator we saw asks for annual miles and annual costs, which is one input short of the answer, and none asked for loaded miles separately.

The Deadhead Uplift

Our own arithmetic on an invented cost of $1.55 per total mile.

At 5 percent deadhead the true cost per loaded mile is $1.632, an uplift of 5.3 percent. At 10 percent: $1.722, up 11.1 percent. At 15 percent: $1.824, up 17.6 percent. At 20 percent: $1.938, up 25.0 percent. At 25 percent: $2.067, up 33.3 percent.

Four observations.

The uplift is larger than the deadhead percentage, and rises faster, because the same cost is being recovered from fewer paying miles.

At 15 percent deadhead an operator who believes their cost is $1.55 is bidding twenty-seven cents a mile below cost on every load they take.

The cost figure is invented and the relationship is exact. Any operator can substitute their own cost and their own deadhead and the arithmetic holds.

And one source touches the point without developing it, ours. A Canadian page notes that fewer dead miles lead to a higher figure at the top end of the earnings range[9], which is the same fact stated as an outcome rather than as a costing instruction.

Why It Stays Invisible

The reason a costing error this large survives. Ours.

Four observations.

The fuel bill is correct. An operator running 15 percent empty burns the fuel and pays for it, and nothing on the invoice says which miles were paid.

The revenue is correct too. Every load settles at the agreed rate, so there is no dispute and no exception report.

The loss appears only in the annual result, where it is indistinguishable from a bad year and gets attributed to rates, to fuel prices or to freight volumes.

And each of those is a plausible alternative explanation, ours, which is exactly why the real cause is never isolated. The operator concludes that rates are too low, which is true in a sense that does not help them.

The test that separates them is cheap and almost never run, ours. Compute revenue per total kilometre and revenue per loaded kilometre for the same year, and the gap between them is your deadhead expressed in money.

If that gap is larger than you expected, the problem is dispatch and lane structure rather than the rate environment, and those have completely different remedies.

Fixed And Variable Are Different Animals

Our own arithmetic on an invented single-truck operation. The per-kilometre inputs come from a commercial Canadian source we grade poorly[5]; the structure is ours.

Take annual fixed costs of $43,800, being truck payment, insurance, permits and administration, and variable costs of $0.64 per kilometre, being fuel, maintenance and tires.

At 80,000 km, fixed cost is $0.547 per kilometre and total cost is $1.188. At 120,000: $0.365 and $1.005. At 160,000: $0.274 and $0.914. At 200,000: $0.219 and $0.859. At 240,000: $0.182 and $0.823.

Applying a 15 percent deadhead adjustment, the cost per loaded kilometre runs from $1.397 at 80,000 km down to $0.968 at 240,000.

Four observations.

Tripling the kilometres cuts total cost per kilometre by about 31 percent, not by two thirds, because only the fixed half dilutes.

The fixed component itself falls by 67 percent, from $0.547 to $0.182, which is the entire economic argument for utilisation.

And the variable half does not move at all. Fuel per kilometre is fuel per kilometre whether you drive 80,000 or 240,000.

Every figure here is invented except the per-kilometre ranges, ours, and those come from a source we would not rely on for anything load-bearing.

What Utilisation Actually Buys

The correct size of the argument, ours, because the industry overstates it.

Four observations.

Utilisation is genuinely powerful and it is not unlimited, and the split above shows why: it works on roughly half the cost base.

The gain also decelerates sharply. Going from 80,000 to 120,000 kilometres saves $0.183 per kilometre; going from 200,000 to 240,000 saves $0.036, which is a fifth as much for the same forty thousand kilometres.

So the first increment of utilisation is where nearly all the money is, and an operator already running high miles has very little left to gain from running more.

And chasing the last increment has costs the arithmetic does not carry, ours. Hours of service, fatigue, maintenance intervals and equipment life all deteriorate at high utilisation, and none of them appears in a cost-per-kilometre table.

One of those is not merely a cost, ours, and we would not want the arithmetic read as encouraging it. Hours of service is a safety regime, not a variable to optimise, and a utilisation plan that requires exceeding it is not a plan.

Where That Argument Stops

A boundary worth marking. Ours.

Four observations.

Utilisation gained by taking cheap freight is not utilisation. A load priced below the true cost per loaded mile makes the annual result worse however many kilometres it adds.

That is the practical use of the deadhead-adjusted figure. It is the number below which a load loses money, and it is higher than the number most operators carry in their head.

The same figure disciplines the opposite error. A load slightly above cost is worth taking when the alternative is sitting, because the fixed costs run either way.

And those two rules only work together if the cost figure is right, ours, which returns the whole article to the arithmetic rather than to a benchmark.

Computing Your Own Number

The procedure, ours, and it takes an evening with twelve months of records.

Four steps.

Separate fixed from variable. Fixed is what you pay if the truck does not move: payment, insurance, permits, plates, administration. Variable is what accrues per kilometre: fuel, maintenance, tires.

Take total kilometres from the odometer or the ELD, not from settlement statements, because settlements record paid distance and the odometer records all of it.

Take loaded kilometres from the settlements, and compute deadhead as one minus loaded divided by total. Most operators have never calculated this figure.

And divide total annual cost by loaded kilometres. That single number is what a rate must beat, and it is the one no published benchmark can give you.

The Line Item Nobody Enters

The item that decides whether any of the published figures are comparable. Ours.

Four observations.

An owner-operator's own driving labour is a cost that never appears as one. A company driver is paid; an owner-operator takes what is left.

Which means a cost per mile computed without it is not comparable to a carrier's cost per mile, where driver compensation is a line item. One source records driver compensation at 43.8 percent of total operating costs for carriers[1].

One commercial source addresses this directly and gives sensible advice: do not include your desired salary in the cost per mile calculation; calculate operating costs first, then determine what rates you need to achieve your income goals[8].

We agree with the method and would add the consequence, ours. The resulting cost per mile is a break-even before you are paid anything, and a rate that merely covers it is a year of unpaid work.

Fuel Surcharge Is Not Revenue

A presentation issue that distorts the rate comparison. Ours.

Four observations.

Canadian sources quote all-in rates that combine line haul and fuel surcharge. One gives $2.50 to $3.00 per mile as line haul plus fuel surcharge[4].

A surcharge is a pass-through against a cost that moves, so comparing an all-in rate to a cost per mile that already includes fuel double-counts nothing but obscures the margin.

The cleaner comparison is line haul against non-fuel cost, and surcharge against fuel cost, kept as two separate tests.

And the reason it matters is diesel volatility, ours. One source reports Greater Toronto Area diesel above $2.39 a litre in March 2026 with Alberta and Saskatchewan running 10 to 15 cents lower[6], which is a spread large enough to swamp a margin computed on a blended rate.

The Canadian Adjustments

Factors specific to operating here, from a Canadian commercial source we grade poorly.

It reports that winter operations typically add 8 to 15 percent to annual operating costs, including 10 to 20 percent higher fuel consumption in extreme cold, winter tires at $3,000 to $5,000 a set, additional maintenance and reduced daily kilometres; that Alberta is generally the most profitable base province due to the lowest diesel prices, moderate insurance and energy-sector freight demand; and that Ontario operators benefit from the highest freight density, which can offset higher costs through reduced deadhead and better load selection[5].

Four observations, ours.

We did not verify any of it, and a reader should treat the percentages as one company's estimate rather than as measurement.

The Ontario point is the one worth extracting, because it connects to our arithmetic. Freight density reduces deadhead, and reduced deadhead lowers cost per loaded mile faster than a fuel saving does.

The reduced-daily-kilometres effect compounds with the fixed cost dilution above. Winter both raises variable cost and reduces the kilometres the fixed cost spreads over, hitting both halves at once.

And a seasonal business needs a seasonal cost figure, ours. An annual average understates winter cost and overstates summer cost, and rates are negotiated in specific months.

The practical version is two figures rather than four seasons, ours. Compute a winter cost per loaded kilometre and a non-winter one, which most operators can do from their own fuel records without any new system.

The Cost That Is Not On Any Statement

An omission common to every cost-per-mile figure we read. Ours.

Four observations.

A truck payment is not the cost of the truck. It is the cost of financing the current one, and it stops when the loan does.

One source makes the point plainly: once a truck is paid off the monthly payment goes away, but maintenance and repair costs do not[7].

What the payment does not capture is the eventual replacement. An operator whose truck is paid off has a lower cost per mile and an approaching capital event that no line item is funding.

Which produces a predictable trap, ours. The most profitable years on paper are the ones immediately before a replacement, and an operator who reads that as sustainable margin will price accordingly and then finance the next truck at whatever rates prevail.

The remedy is a reserve rather than a rate change, ours. Funding replacement from the years without a payment turns a capital shock into a level cost, which is the same argument the reserve fund article in this silo makes about a building.

What To Test A Rate Confirmation Against

The practical output of everything above, in four numbers. Ours.

Four figures an operator should be able to state without looking anything up.

Variable cost per kilometre, being fuel, maintenance and tires. This is what an additional kilometre costs and it does not change with utilisation.

Fixed cost per year, being everything that accrues whether the truck moves or not.

Deadhead proportion, computed as one minus loaded distance over total distance from your own records.

And cost per loaded kilometre, being total annual cost divided by loaded distance, which is the figure a rate must beat.

Four observations.

The first two are on the financial statements and the third is not, ours, which is why the fourth is almost never computed.

The four together answer both decisions an operator faces. Whether to take this load uses the fourth; whether to run more uses the first two.

None of them requires a benchmark, an industry average or a report. All four come from records the operator already has.

Which is the reason we would put this exercise ahead of almost any other, ours. It costs an evening, it requires nothing you do not own, and it changes what you say yes to.

And that is the honest end of this article, ours. We could not tell you what a Canadian owner-operator costs and we can tell you how to find out what yours does, which is the more useful of the two.

We would rather publish that than a number, ours. A figure we could not stand behind would have made a better headline and a worse article, and the whole point of the grading scheme this publication uses is to make that choice visible rather than silent.

If You Advise A Carrier

For our own profession. Ours.

Four points.

Ask for total kilometres and loaded kilometres separately. Most clients can produce the first and have never produced the second, and the gap between them is the finding.

Split the cost base into fixed and variable before computing anything per kilometre. A blended figure hides the utilisation argument and the break-even both.

Establish whether the owner's compensation is inside or outside the cost figure, because a number that excludes it is a break-even and not a cost.

And do not benchmark the client against a published cost per mile. On the evidence in this article, the published figures span a factor of five and most are foreign data in foreign currency.

There is a better comparison available and it is internal, ours. Benchmark the client against their own prior year, which controls for lane, equipment, freight type and province in a way no published figure can.

What To Do

Compute your cost per loaded kilometre, not per kilometre. Divide total cost by loaded distance, and at 15 percent deadhead the difference is about 18 percent.

Take total distance from the odometer and loaded distance from settlements. They measure different things and the ratio is your deadhead.

Separate fixed from variable before dividing anything. Only the fixed half dilutes with utilisation.

Treat your own labour as outside the cost figure and know that you have. The resulting number is a break-even before you are paid.

Test line haul against non-fuel cost and surcharge against fuel separately, rather than comparing an all-in rate to an all-in cost.

Recompute for winter. Cold raises variable cost and cuts the distance the fixed cost spreads over, and rates are agreed month by month.

Treat any published cost per mile as unverified. The figures we found range from $1.20 to $2.26 and most are American, in American dollars.

And take a load slightly above your true cost rather than sitting, while refusing anything below it however many kilometres it adds.

The Limits Of This Analysis

Several caveats matter, and they are larger here than in any other article in this silo. This discusses operating costs and is not tax, accounting, legal or business advice; an operator should compute their own figures from their own records. This is the weakest-sourced article we have published in this silo. Every dollar figure attributed to a source comes from a commercial blog, a software vendor, a factoring company, a transport company's marketing page or an immigration advisory site; we obtained no primary dataset, no government statistic and no industry association research. We searched for a Statistics Canada or Canadian industry association figure for operating cost per kilometre and did not find one, which does not establish that none exists. We did not obtain the American Transportation Research Institute report that several sources cite as their basis, so every figure we attribute to it, including the $2.26 per mile average, the $1.779 non-fuel figure, the 43.8 percent driver compensation share and the 178,091 tractor sample, reaches us at second hand and may be misreported by the sources we read. That report is United States data in United States dollars and we make no claim about its applicability to Canadian operations. The Canadian per-kilometre cost ranges, the winter premium of 8 to 15 percent, the provincial comparisons and the diesel price observations all come from single commercial sources we did not verify. All arithmetic is ours, and every figure in our worked examples is invented: the $1.55 cost per total mile, the $43,800 of fixed cost, the deadhead percentages and the kilometre bands are chosen to demonstrate a structure and are not estimates of anything. Our reconciliation of the low net income figure establishes only that it is arithmetically coherent, not that it is correct. And our conclusion that the sources describe different operations is our own inference from the figures rather than a statement any of them makes.

Related Reading

Niche Industry Operational Finance The Vacancy Factor Ontario funds childcare centres on costs plus a margin, minus assumed parent fees. The multiplier on that subtraction moved from 0.90 to 0.95, and it... Niche Industry Finance The True Cost Of A Truck Roll The same distinction in a different trade: what a dispatched vehicle actually costs. Niche Industry Finance The Error It Cannot See Another case where a routine calculation is correct and answers the wrong question.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a Canadian owner-operator actually net?

We could not establish it. Published figures range from $22,494 to $120,000 for the same occupation in the same year, and on our own arithmetic both ends reconcile because they describe operations of different sizes. No source we found gives a sample, an interval or a methodology.

What is the loaded-mile adjustment?

You are paid per loaded mile and incur cost per total mile, so the cost figure you bid against must be divided by one minus your deadhead proportion. On our own arithmetic, a cost of $1.55 per total mile is $1.82 per loaded mile at 15 percent deadhead, an uplift of 17.6 percent.

Why does that error stay hidden?

Because nothing breaks. The fuel bill is correct, every load settles at the agreed rate, and the shortfall appears only in the annual result, where it is indistinguishable from soft rates or high fuel prices. Those are plausible alternative explanations, which is why the real cause is rarely isolated.

Is the $2.26 per mile figure usable in Canada?

Treat it as unadjusted. It comes from an American research report, in American dollars, and we saw it quoted to Canadian readers without a currency or jurisdiction note. We did not obtain the report and cannot say whether it addresses Canadian operations.

How much does running more kilometres help?

Less than the industry suggests. On our own invented figures, tripling from 80,000 to 240,000 kilometres cuts total cost per kilometre by about 31 percent, not two thirds, because only the fixed half dilutes. The first increment carries nearly all of the gain.

Should my own wage be in the cost per mile?

One commercial source advises calculating operating costs first and then determining what rates achieve your income goals, and we agree with that method. The consequence to hold onto is that the resulting figure is a break-even before you are paid anything, so a rate that merely covers it is a year of unpaid work.

Should I take a cheap load to keep moving?

Above your true cost per loaded mile, usually yes, because the fixed costs run whether you move or not. Below it, no, however many kilometres it adds. Both rules depend on the cost figure being computed correctly, which is the subject of this article.

References

1. Trucking statistics website, industry statistics and trends page, last updated February 2026, citing as its primary data source the American Transportation Research Institute Operational Costs Report 2025 covering 178,091 Class 8 tractors and 14.08 billion miles. States that average trucking operating cost is $2.260 per mile; that costs excluding fuel rose 3.6 percent to $1.779 per mile, the highest non-fuel operating costs recorded; that driver compensation accounts for 43.8 percent of total operating costs; that on $155,000 gross revenue owner-operators typically net $22,494 to $27,494 after all expenses and taxes, being 14.5 to 17.8 percent of gross, with fuel at $48,800 a year, maintenance $18,900, truck payments $18,000 and insurance $13,500; that truckload carriers posted a negative 2.3 percent operating margin in 2024; and that the Northeast has the highest operating costs at $2.461 per mile against South Central at $2.107, a difference of 16.8 percent. Note: a commercial statistics website, NOT a primary source, flagged. The ATRI report itself was NOT obtained and every figure attributed to it here is at second hand. All figures are United States data in United States dollars. truckingway.com
2. Fuel card company's blog on owner-operator statistics, February 2026, citing the ATRI 2025 Operational Costs of Trucking report and a driver business services firm's 2025 data. States that the average cost of operating a truck in 2024 was $2.26 per mile with non-fuel operating costs at $1.779; that truck and trailer payments rose 8.3 percent to $0.39 per mile; that insurance reached $0.102 per mile; that maintenance is $1,234 per month or approximately 14 cents per mile, up 6.6 percent from 2023; that industry-wide repair and maintenance was $0.198 per mile in 2024; that most owner-operators net between $60,000 and $120,000 per year with the firm's client average at $64,524 in 2024-2025; and that the top third of that firm's long-term clients averaged $156,000 annually. Note: a commercial fuel card company's blog, NOT a primary source, flagged. United States data in United States dollars. atob.com
3. Canadian trucking industry website, guide to truck driver pay in Canada for 2026, stating that Canadian truck drivers earned between $58,000 and $110,000 in 2025; that per-mile rates average $0.55 to $0.75 for mid-career drivers; that owner-operators gross $130,000 to $220,000 before deductions, netting $65,000 to $110,000 after fuel, maintenance and fixed costs; and that Canada's trucking industry carries an estimated 20,000 or more driver vacancy on a 2025 Canadian Trucking Alliance census. The page states it is informational only and does not constitute tax, legal or financial advice. Note: a commercial Canadian trucking site, NOT a primary source, flagged. We did not obtain the Canadian Trucking Alliance census it cites. truckerpro.ca
4. Same Canadian trucking industry website, article on owner-operator income in Canada for 2026, stating that a full-time Canadian owner-operator running a single Class 8 tractor on long-haul or regional freight can expect gross revenue of $250,000 to $350,000 per year, assuming approximately 100,000 to 130,000 miles a year, an average all-in rate of line haul plus fuel surcharge of $2.50 to $3.00 per mile, and consistent freight availability with minimal unpaid downtime; and that owner-operators leased to a carrier typically gross at the lower end because the carrier takes a percentage for dispatch, insurance and administration. Note: a commercial Canadian trucking site, NOT a primary source, flagged. Our source for the leased-versus-independent distinction and the all-in rate range. truckerpro.ca
5. Canadian trucking analytics company's blog on owner-operator profitability in Canada, April 2026, giving a Canadian cost table with fuel at $96,000 to $136,000 annually or $0.53 to $0.76 per kilometre, truck payment $24,000 to $45,600 or $0.13 to $0.25, insurance $14,400 to $28,800 or $0.08 to $0.16, maintenance and repairs $14,400 to $27,000 or $0.08 to $0.15, tires $4,800 to $8,400 or $0.03 to $0.05, permits and licensing $3,600 to $7,200 or $0.02 to $0.04, and communication and electronic logging at $1,200 to $2,400. States that winter operations typically add 8 to 15 percent to annual operating costs including 10 to 20 percent higher fuel consumption in extreme cold and winter tires at $3,000 to $5,000 a set; that Alberta is generally the most profitable base province due to lowest diesel prices, moderate insurance and energy-sector freight demand; that Ontario operators benefit from the highest freight density which can offset higher costs through reduced deadhead and better load selection; and that cross-border loads pay 15 to 30 percent more on average. Note: a commercial Canadian analytics company's marketing blog, NOT a primary source, flagged at every use. Our only Canadian per-kilometre cost table and the source of the per-kilometre inputs in our worked example. NOT verified. haulalytics.com
6. Logistics company's guide to trucking costs in Canada, April 2026, stating that the main drivers of Canadian trucking costs are fuel at 20 to 35 percent of total operating costs, driver wages and retention, vehicle maintenance and equipment replacement, and cross-border compliance fees; that diesel in the Greater Toronto Area exceeded $2.39 per litre in March 2026 with some operators reporting above $2.40; and that Alberta and Saskatchewan typically run 10 to 15 cents lower per litre due to proximity to refineries and lower provincial fuel taxes. Note: a logistics company's marketing content, NOT a primary source, flagged. Our source for the fuel share range and the provincial diesel spread. NOT verified. whyloyalty.com
7. Load board company's blog on owner-operator expenses in 2026, stating that it costs about $2.26 per mile to operate a truck on 2024 ATRI data; that a driver business services firm put owner-operator take-home at roughly $71,800 in 2025; that break-even cost before paying yourself is commonly around $1.30 to $1.80 per mile though 2026 fuel prices have pushed that higher; that maintenance and repairs should be budgeted at about 14 cents per mile or roughly $14,000 a year, usually including $1,000 to $4,000 a year for tires; and that fuel is the single largest expense. Note: a commercial load board company's blog, NOT a primary source, flagged. United States data in United States dollars. truckstop.com
8. Transport company's blog on owner-operator cost per mile, April 2026, giving fuel at $0.54 per mile, insurance $0.12, maintenance $0.15 and truck payment $0.35, and stating that new owner-operators typically spend $1.20 to $1.50 per mile in total operating costs; that cost per mile should be calculated monthly for variable expenses and quarterly for a complete breakdown; that a desired salary should not be included in cost per mile calculations, operating costs being calculated first and required rates determined afterward; that many operators forget truck washes, tolls, parking and equipment replacement which add $0.10 to $0.15 per mile; and that base plates, IFTA permits and registration cost $2,500 to $4,000 annually. Note: a transport company's marketing blog, NOT a primary source, flagged. Cited for its advice on excluding owner salary from the cost calculation, which we endorse on its merits rather than its authority. Note also that its headline range and its in-text range differ. rockytransportinc.com
9. Immigration advisory website's page on truck driver salary in Canada, stating that owner-operator earnings vary from CAD 80,000 to 150,000 or more per year before expenses and taxes; that once fuel, maintenance, insurance and taxes are deducted net income is approximately CAD 60,000 to 120,000 depending on route efficiency, load type and operating costs; and that earnings based on per-kilometre or per-trip rates mean greater distances and fewer dead miles can lead to a higher figure at the top end of the range. Note: an immigration advisory website, NOT a trucking or financial authority and NOT a primary source. This is the WEAKEST SOURCE IN THIS ARTICLE and is cited only to document the upper end of the published range and one passing reference to dead miles. terratern.com

This article discusses operating costs and is not tax, accounting, legal or business advice. It is the weakest-sourced article in this silo: no primary dataset, government statistic or industry association research was obtained, and every dollar figure attributed to a source comes from commercial content. The most-cited benchmark is United States data in United States dollars. All arithmetic is the authors' own and every figure in the worked examples is invented to demonstrate a structure.