<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">An immediate bump in cargo is likely in the wake of this week’s deal between Washington and Beijing, but it’s too early for US retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for 2026 spring and summer imports. </div>

An immediate bump in cargo is likely in the wake of this week’s deal between Washington and Beijing, but it’s too early for US retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for 2026 spring and summer imports.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The US-China trade deal announced this week will prompt some US retailers to move quickly on imports they need in the short term, but the seemingly tenuous nature of the agreement – notably its one-year term – will likely prevent a broad shift back to traditional ordering patterns, market participants say. “If it’s needed now, it will be ordered. Longer term, retailers need more time. There will be hesitancy,” an industry consultant who managed the logistics departments of two national retailers, told the Journal of Commerce. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear, immediately shifted imports that it had scheduled to ship by air beginning Nov. 1 back to ocean mode after the US-China deal. “We’ll save a good deal of money,” said John Pace, the company’s senior manager of logistics. In the longer term, even with the deal’s elimination of the10% so-called “fentanyl tax” on imports from China, the total tariff on most imports from China is about 47%, which is higher than tariffs on most countries in Asia. As such, Revelyst will continue to explore sourcing options from countries such as Vietnam, Pace said. The broad agreement <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-china-suspend-reciprocal-port-fees-as-part-of-wider-trade-deal-6105849">announced Thursday</a> also included a one-year pause in the reciprocal port fees the US and China had implemented on Oct. 14. The National Retail Federation (NRF), which represents a broad range of retailers, said a bump in imports in the short-term is likely in the wake of the deal, but that it’s too early for retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for spring and summer imports in 2026. “The challenge for retailers is there’s still so much uncertainty about what’s going to come out and when it’s going to come out,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy. Many details relating to tariffs on important commodities such as steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber, when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin to collect duties, and what the status is of duties that have already been collected are still uncertain, Gold said. Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics, said there’s been a hesitancy over the past two months among retailers and direct importers to ship seasonal merchandise and replenishment product for fear the US-China talks would break down and the huge tariffs would remain in place. But those fears have been allayed, at least for now. “So make up for the hesitation and bring in as much inventory as possible in case things blow up again,” Cook said. <h3>Some importers keep supply chain strategy unchanged </h3>Still, some importers say their ordering patterns have not really been affected by the trade agreement. A national furniture retailer said the company earlier this year set its logistics plan and sourcing patterns for 2025, has stuck with those plans, and has no regrets for doing so. “The fact that major decisions are being made in such a knee-jerk fashion has us scared,” said the furniture retailer’s logistics manager. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>An importer in the automotive sector said he has no intention of increasing imports from China. “A 10% (tariff) change is not material enough to make a switch,” the source said. “The overall rates are still very high.” <h3>Prior GRIs boosted rates in October </h3>Imports from all of Asia have remained relatively strong this fall even though carriers have been successful in propping up freight rates through a series of general rate increases (GRIs). Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged Asia-West Coast rates at $2,075 per FEU as of Oct. 30, up from $1,300 earlier in the month as an Oct. 1 GRI was taking hold. Rates to the East Coast have risen to $3,075 per FEU from $2,260 over the same period. Trans-Pacific carriers pre-filed GRIs to take effect on Nov. 1, and so far the alliance carriers have been holding on to the intended rate hike, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an advisor to forwarders. Most, but not all, carriers are posting rates of $3,800 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,800 per FEU to the West Coast this weekend, Monroe said. “It looks like carriers are holding it together publicly but privately they’re cutting deals,” he said. Importers and forwarders who utilize so-called bullet rates and on-line rates from individual carriers can save about $300 to $400 per FEU, according to Monroe. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6a6ec157-c71e-4ab2-ae59-6658aada11d8"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers have succeeded in propping up rates by reducing capacity in the trans-Pacific through blank sailings, but reduced blanks scheduled so far for November could result in additional capacity being available. The blanking rate to the West Coast so far for November is 8.2% of capacity, down from 20.8% in October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Similarly, blanked capacity from Asia to the East Coast is pegged thus far at 10.9% for November, down from 22.8% in October. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US-China trade deal announced this week will prompt some US retailers to move quickly on imports they need in the short term, but the seemingly tenuous nature of the agreement – notably its one-year term – will likely prevent a broad shift back to traditional ordering patterns, market participants say. “If it’s needed now, it will be ordered. Longer term, retailers need more time. There will be hesitancy,” an industry consultant who managed the logistics departments of two national retailers, told the Journal of Commerce. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear, immediately shifted imports that it had scheduled to ship by air beginning Nov. 1 back to ocean mode after the US-China deal. “We’ll save a good deal of money,” said John Pace, the company’s senior manager of logistics. In the longer term, even with the deal’s elimination of the10% so-called “fentanyl tax” on imports from China, the total tariff on most imports from China is about 47%, which is higher than tariffs on most countries in Asia. As such, Revelyst will continue to explore sourcing options from countries such as Vietnam, Pace said. The broad agreement announced Thursday also included a one-year pause in the reciprocal port fees the US and China had implemented on Oct. 14. The National Retail Federation (NRF), which represents a broad range of retailers, said a bump in imports in the short-term is likely in the wake of the deal, but that it’s too early for retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for spring and summer imports in 2026. “The challenge for retailers is there’s still so much uncertainty about what’s going to come out and when it’s going to come out,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy. Many details relating to tariffs on important commodities such as steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber, when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin to collect duties, and what the status is of duties that have already been collected are still uncertain, Gold said. Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics, said there’s been a hesitancy over the past two months among retailers and direct importers to ship seasonal merchandise and replenishment product for fear the US-China talks would break down and the huge tariffs would remain in place. But those fears have been allayed, at least for now. “So make up for the hesitation and bring in as much inventory as possible in case things blow up again,” Cook said. Some importers keep supply chain strategy unchanged Still, some importers say their ordering patterns have not really been affected by the trade agreement. A national furniture retailer said the company earlier this year set its logistics plan and sourcing patterns for 2025, has stuck with those plans, and has no regrets for doing so. “The fact that major decisions are being made in such a knee-jerk fashion has us scared,” said the furniture retailer’s logistics manager. An importer in the automotive sector said he has no intention of increasing imports from China. “A 10% (tariff) change is not material enough to make a switch,” the source said. “The overall rates are still very high.” Prior GRIs boosted rates in October Imports from all of Asia have remained relatively strong this fall even though carriers have been successful in propping up freight rates through a series of general rate increases (GRIs). Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged Asia-West Coast rates at $2,075 per FEU as of Oct. 30, up from $1,300 earlier in the month as an Oct. 1 GRI was taking hold. Rates to the East Coast have risen to $3,075 per FEU from $2,260 over the same period. Trans-Pacific carriers pre-filed GRIs to take effect on Nov. 1, and so far the alliance carriers have been holding on to the intended rate hike, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an advisor to forwarders. Most, but not all, carriers are posting rates of $3,800 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,800 per FEU to the West Coast this weekend, Monroe said. “It looks like carriers are holding it together publicly but privately they’re cutting deals,” he said. Importers and forwarders who utilize so-called bullet rates and on-line rates from individual carriers can save about $300 to $400 per FEU, according to Monroe. Carriers have succeeded in propping up rates by reducing capacity in the trans-Pacific through blank sailings, but reduced blanks scheduled so far for November could result in additional capacity being available. The blanking rate to the West Coast so far for November is 8.2% of capacity, down from 20.8% in October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Similarly, blanked capacity from Asia to the East Coast is pegged thus far at 10.9% for November, down from 22.8% in October. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Trans-Pacific

Maritime

Trade deal could boost short-term China imports, but uncertainty lingers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier, as it seeks with BlackRock to acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings, is developing a mega-terminal in New Orleans and another terminal in Baltimore. </div>

The carrier, as it seeks with BlackRock to acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings, is developing a mega-terminal in New Orleans and another terminal in Baltimore.

<div class="phx-topic">Charleston, South Carolina — The president of Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s US business believes there aren’t enough new US port projects in the works that will create the capacity needed to handle the anticipated growth in cargo volumes in the coming years. Fabio Santucci says that better use of existing terminal footprints and more greenfield development were needed to support a market where consumer spending accounts for 70% of gross domestic product (GDP). And he said he’s confident in longer-term import growth and hopes the finalization of US trade deals will give cargo owners more certainty on changing tariff levels. “I think it’s essential that ports like Charleston and many others, continue to invest heavily in densifying the facilities, in focusing on their operating model because, let’s face it, there are not many new ports coming to the rescue,” Santucci said Wednesday at the South Carolina International Trade Conference. MSC, as it seeks with BlackRock to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-deal-shows-thirst-of-big-carriers-to-control-global-terminal-assets-5960717">acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings</a>, is developing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-gulf-coast-ports-expanding-to-handle-continued-volume-growth-5911512">a mega-terminal in New Orleans</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-msc-backed-baltimore-container-terminal-on-track-for-2028-debut-5220430">another terminal in Baltimore</a>. The carrier, already the largest container operator by tonnage, would become the biggest marine terminal operator via its Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) arm if the $23 billion Hutchison deal is completed. Santucci acknowledged that US ports were able to handle import-driven surges earlier this year, but said overall performance has room to improve. “Nobody wants to keep a vessel at anchor waiting. It’s costing somebody a lot of money and there must be an impediment on the landside,” he said. <h3>Southeast ‘poised’ for growth </h3>MSC has grown its volume through Charleston by 15% this year, well above the port’s total growth. US laden volume through Charleston ticked up 0.5% year over year between January and August, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. “The southeast [ports], specifically, the growth that we see on the industrial side, the population growth, specifically Charleston, are poised for a lot of growth in the coming years,” said Santucci. “The import market is not growing 15% so it means that our joint customers are seeing Charleston as a very good and useful gateway.” MSC earlier this year opened an expanded Charleston campus. In his first State of the Port address, Micah Mallace, the new head of the SC Port Authority, said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-charleston-ceo-seeks-to-regain-container-growth-momentum-6104583">the port had ample terminal capacity</a> and would prioritize projects in the short term to feed expanded terminal capacity. When it opened in 2021, Charleston’s Leatherman terminal was the first new US terminal to come online since 2009. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Charleston, South Carolina — The president of Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s US business believes there aren’t enough new US port projects in the works that will create the capacity needed to handle the anticipated growth in cargo volumes in the coming years. Fabio Santucci says that better use of existing terminal footprints and more greenfield development were needed to support a market where consumer spending accounts for 70% of gross domestic product (GDP). And he said he’s confident in longer-term import growth and hopes the finalization of US trade deals will give cargo owners more certainty on changing tariff levels. “I think it’s essential that ports like Charleston and many others, continue to invest heavily in densifying the facilities, in focusing on their operating model because, let’s face it, there are not many new ports coming to the rescue,” Santucci said Wednesday at the South Carolina International Trade Conference. MSC, as it seeks with BlackRock to acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings , is developing a mega-terminal in New Orleans and another terminal in Baltimore . The carrier, already the largest container operator by tonnage, would become the biggest marine terminal operator via its Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) arm if the $23 billion Hutchison deal is completed. Santucci acknowledged that US ports were able to handle import-driven surges earlier this year, but said overall performance has room to improve. “Nobody wants to keep a vessel at anchor waiting. It’s costing somebody a lot of money and there must be an impediment on the landside,” he said. Southeast ‘poised’ for growth MSC has grown its volume through Charleston by 15% this year, well above the port’s total growth. US laden volume through Charleston ticked up 0.5% year over year between January and August, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. “The southeast [ports], specifically, the growth that we see on the industrial side, the population growth, specifically Charleston, are poised for a lot of growth in the coming years,” said Santucci. “The import market is not growing 15% so it means that our joint customers are seeing Charleston as a very good and useful gateway.” MSC earlier this year opened an expanded Charleston campus. In his first State of the Port address, Micah Mallace, the new head of the SC Port Authority, said the port had ample terminal capacity and would prioritize projects in the short term to feed expanded terminal capacity. When it opened in 2021, Charleston’s Leatherman terminal was the first new US terminal to come online since 2009. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

North American ports

US port capacity lagging ahead of potential volume growth: MSC

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The railroads will make a harder play to capture Dallas-to-East Coast freight after track upgrades come online along the Gulf Coast early next year. </div>

The railroads will make a harder play to capture Dallas-to-East Coast freight after track upgrades come online along the Gulf Coast early next year.

<div class="phx-topic">Partners Canadian Pacific Kansas City and CSX Transportation plan to complete major track upgrades along the Gulf Coast early next year that will enable faster intermodal train service between Texas and the US Southeast and bring the route closer to competing with trucking. The upgrade project began after the US Surface Transportation Board in October 2024 approved two transactions allowing CPKC and CSX to acquire approximately 140 miles of track in Alabama and Mississippi from the Meridian &amp; Bigbee Railroad, a short line. The railroads have been replacing old infrastructure that limited trains to a speed of 25 miles per hour with new tracks capable of handling trains moving at nearly twice that pace. Work is expected to wrap up in January or February. “[It will] allow us to create a transit time and a product option never before possible. This is going to connect Atlanta to Dallas in about 30 hours,” CPKC CEO Keith Creel said on an earnings call this week. “And 30 hours is truck-like competitive, single truck-like competitive. I think it’s a unique differentiator that can’t be replicated in a UP-NS combination.” Allowing that possibility required upgrading CPKC’s 50-mile section of track and CSX’s 94-mile portion. “We put a tremendous amount of investment when we took that line back, upwards of $100 million already,” Kevin Boone, CSX’s CFO, said at the South Carolina International Trade Conference on Thursday. “It’s already a good service today, but you’ll see a very, very competitive service, and even more to go next year.” The main beneficiary of the work is intermodal service provider Schneider National, which has close partnerships with both railroads and anchors the Southeast Mexico Express trains linking Mexico and Atlanta through the same corridor. Creel emphasized that the upgrades finally give CPKC and CSX a chance to compete for domestic freight between Atlanta and Dallas, which the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index shows has long favored trucks on both cost and speed. <h3>Truck advantages hard to overcome </h3>Still, while intermodal service on the route becomes more competitive, the track upgrades might not completely change the calculus. The 780-mile run between Atlanta and Dallas requires a driver to take a 10-hour rest break en route. But at an average of 450 miles per day, the total door-to-door highway transit is approximately 24 hours, faster than the projected 30-hour schedule by rail. The CPKC-CSX transit also assumes a perfect handoff between the railroads in Myrtlewood, Alabama. CPKC itself has noted the frequent delays that occur on interchanges between two railroads in general when highlighting the benefits of its single-line railroad between Mexico and Chicago versus a two-railroad solution. And the 30-hour figure excludes drayage, lift-on and lift-off time at terminals, and mounting containers onto chassis, all key elements in true door-to-door intermodal transit. Even so, the track upgrades do narrow the competitive gap and give Schneider a platform to market other advantages of rail, such as capacity alternative and lower greenhouse gas emissions. If the service proves reliable and the pricing remains competitive, the Atlanta-Dallas route could begin to see a shift of truckload volumes to intermodal. The improved corridor could also open new routes, such as Charlotte and Jacksonville to Dallas via Atlanta. BNSF Railway and CSX launched a similar service in September linking Southern California with Charlotte and Jacksonville, building on a train that has run between California and Atlanta for nearly two decades. A comparable overlay toward Dallas could follow. While Union Pacific Railroad offers an option from Mexico to the Southeast via Memphis, it requires a truck to dray containers between terminals. The upgraded Meridian &amp; Bigbee line represents one of the final building blocks in creating a more direct, rail-only link between Mexico, Texas, and the Southeast for the first time in a generation. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Partners Canadian Pacific Kansas City and CSX Transportation plan to complete major track upgrades along the Gulf Coast early next year that will enable faster intermodal train service between Texas and the US Southeast and bring the route closer to competing with trucking. The upgrade project began after the US Surface Transportation Board in October 2024 approved two transactions allowing CPKC and CSX to acquire approximately 140 miles of track in Alabama and Mississippi from the Meridian & Bigbee Railroad, a short line. The railroads have been replacing old infrastructure that limited trains to a speed of 25 miles per hour with new tracks capable of handling trains moving at nearly twice that pace. Work is expected to wrap up in January or February. “[It will] allow us to create a transit time and a product option never before possible. This is going to connect Atlanta to Dallas in about 30 hours,” CPKC CEO Keith Creel said on an earnings call this week. “And 30 hours is truck-like competitive, single truck-like competitive. I think it’s a unique differentiator that can’t be replicated in a UP-NS combination.” Allowing that possibility required upgrading CPKC’s 50-mile section of track and CSX’s 94-mile portion. “We put a tremendous amount of investment when we took that line back, upwards of $100 million already,” Kevin Boone, CSX’s CFO, said at the South Carolina International Trade Conference on Thursday. “It’s already a good service today, but you’ll see a very, very competitive service, and even more to go next year.” The main beneficiary of the work is intermodal service provider Schneider National, which has close partnerships with both railroads and anchors the Southeast Mexico Express trains linking Mexico and Atlanta through the same corridor. Creel emphasized that the upgrades finally give CPKC and CSX a chance to compete for domestic freight between Atlanta and Dallas, which the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index shows has long favored trucks on both cost and speed. Truck advantages hard to overcome Still, while intermodal service on the route becomes more competitive, the track upgrades might not completely change the calculus. The 780-mile run between Atlanta and Dallas requires a driver to take a 10-hour rest break en route. But at an average of 450 miles per day, the total door-to-door highway transit is approximately 24 hours, faster than the projected 30-hour schedule by rail. The CPKC-CSX transit also assumes a perfect handoff between the railroads in Myrtlewood, Alabama. CPKC itself has noted the frequent delays that occur on interchanges between two railroads in general when highlighting the benefits of its single-line railroad between Mexico and Chicago versus a two-railroad solution. And the 30-hour figure excludes drayage, lift-on and lift-off time at terminals, and mounting containers onto chassis, all key elements in true door-to-door intermodal transit. Even so, the track upgrades do narrow the competitive gap and give Schneider a platform to market other advantages of rail, such as capacity alternative and lower greenhouse gas emissions. If the service proves reliable and the pricing remains competitive, the Atlanta-Dallas route could begin to see a shift of truckload volumes to intermodal. The improved corridor could also open new routes, such as Charlotte and Jacksonville to Dallas via Atlanta. BNSF Railway and CSX launched a similar service in September linking Southern California with Charlotte and Jacksonville, building on a train that has run between California and Atlanta for nearly two decades. A comparable overlay toward Dallas could follow. While Union Pacific Railroad offers an option from Mexico to the Southeast via Memphis, it requires a truck to dray containers between terminals. The upgraded Meridian & Bigbee line represents one of the final building blocks in creating a more direct, rail-only link between Mexico, Texas, and the Southeast for the first time in a generation. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

CPKC-CSX target 2026 as big year for Mexico-Texas-East Coast trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The company’s spending push is another sign that shipping and logistics multinationals are increasingly betting on India’s potential as an alternative maritime hub. </div>

The company’s spending push is another sign that shipping and logistics multinationals are increasingly betting on India’s potential as an alternative maritime hub.

<div class="phx-topic">Global terminal and logistics giant DP World is rapidly bolstering its Indian footprint in anticipation of demand growth amid trade diversification moves and other promising regional market dynamics. The Dubai-based company has committed a further $5 billion to expand its integrated supply chain ecosystems in India. The announcement came Thursday during a government-spearheaded maritime conclave in Mumbai. That fresh investment adds to the $3 billion DP World has already poured into the Indian market across marine terminal and multimodal logistics verticals, the company said in a statement. “DP World has been a part of India’s growth story for nearly three decades,” said group Chairman and CEO Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. “This new investment, combined with the strategic partnerships, reaffirms our commitment to advancing India’s maritime and logistics industry and cementing the nation’s position in global trade.” The group aims to tap new opportunities in coastal shipping, shipbuilding and repair, and other advanced freight service solutions. Coastal shipping development seems to be an emerging priority on DP World’s growth agenda for India, possibly by adding more locally flagged assets to subsidiary Unifeeder’s fleet. Unifeeder acquired Indian feeder line Shreyas Shipping in 2020. DP World subsidiary Drydocks World also plans to open a ship repair cluster at Cochin, looking beyond the port gates. <h3>DP World not alone in new Indian investment </h3>The global operator already holds five container terminal concessions across four port locations in India. Additionally, it is building a $550-million box terminal off Kandla Port along the Indian west coast with an annual designed capacity of 2.2 million TEUs, targeted to begin phase 1 operations in 2027. DP World’s 2024 Indian container volumes stood at 5.4 million TEUs, representing approximately 22% of the 24 million TEUs handled nationally during the year, data shows. The company’s investment push is another sign that shipping and logistics multinationals are increasingly betting on India’s potential as an alternative maritime hub. For example, in addition <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-joins-cma-cgm-in-reflagging-container-ships-in-india-amid-antitrust-pressure-6104614">to vessel reflaggings and shipyard-related interests</a>, Maersk now intends to extend its Indian reach to container manufacturing, historically a Chinese fiefdom. The Danish liner is said to be exploring a partnership with Delhi-based diversified group DCM Shriram for local production and/or sourcing. This seemingly ties in with DCM’s existing joint venture with South Korea’s Hyundai Mobis in that field. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Global terminal and logistics giant DP World is rapidly bolstering its Indian footprint in anticipation of demand growth amid trade diversification moves and other promising regional market dynamics. The Dubai-based company has committed a further $5 billion to expand its integrated supply chain ecosystems in India. The announcement came Thursday during a government-spearheaded maritime conclave in Mumbai. That fresh investment adds to the $3 billion DP World has already poured into the Indian market across marine terminal and multimodal logistics verticals, the company said in a statement. “DP World has been a part of India’s growth story for nearly three decades,” said group Chairman and CEO Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. “This new investment, combined with the strategic partnerships, reaffirms our commitment to advancing India’s maritime and logistics industry and cementing the nation’s position in global trade.” The group aims to tap new opportunities in coastal shipping, shipbuilding and repair, and other advanced freight service solutions. Coastal shipping development seems to be an emerging priority on DP World’s growth agenda for India, possibly by adding more locally flagged assets to subsidiary Unifeeder’s fleet. Unifeeder acquired Indian feeder line Shreyas Shipping in 2020. DP World subsidiary Drydocks World also plans to open a ship repair cluster at Cochin, looking beyond the port gates. DP World not alone in new Indian investment The global operator already holds five container terminal concessions across four port locations in India. Additionally, it is building a $550-million box terminal off Kandla Port along the Indian west coast with an annual designed capacity of 2.2 million TEUs, targeted to begin phase 1 operations in 2027. DP World’s 2024 Indian container volumes stood at 5.4 million TEUs, representing approximately 22% of the 24 million TEUs handled nationally during the year, data shows. The company’s investment push is another sign that shipping and logistics multinationals are increasingly betting on India’s potential as an alternative maritime hub. For example, in addition to vessel reflaggings and shipyard-related interests , Maersk now intends to extend its Indian reach to container manufacturing, historically a Chinese fiefdom. The Danish liner is said to be exploring a partnership with Delhi-based diversified group DCM Shriram for local production and/or sourcing. This seemingly ties in with DCM’s existing joint venture with South Korea’s Hyundai Mobis in that field. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Marine terminals

International ports

DP World lines up $5 billion investment program for India expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">ODFL, XPO and Saia reported annualized declines in third-quarter shipments but are positioning themselves for a stronger freight market in 2026. </div>

ODFL, XPO and Saia reported annualized declines in third-quarter shipments but are positioning themselves for a stronger freight market in 2026.

<div class="phx-topic">US less-than-truckload (LTL) providers are pursuing highly individualized paths in an anemic freight market, with shipment volumes rising but still lower than a year ago. Three of the largest LTL carriers this week reported gains in average revenue per hundredweight for the third quarter, a sign that their pricing is not falling despite a weak market. LTL revenue per hundredweight, with or without fuel surcharges, was up 4.7% year over year at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in the third quarter. At XPO, it rose 5.8% with surcharges and 5.9% without them. Saia reported a 0.5% increase in LTL revenue per hundredweight including surcharges and a 0.1% drop without them. Even with a flatter yield, Saia reported an average contract pricing renewal rate of 5.1% for the quarter. The company recently announced a 5.9% general rate increase (GRI) for non-contract tariff rates, which was effective Oct. 1. ODFL is pursuing a 4.9% non-contract GRI, effective Nov. 3, while LTL sector leader FedEx Freight will seek a 5.9% GRI on Jan. 5. The motor carriers reject claims that LTL carrier pricing discipline is weakening under the pressure of low freight demand. The US long-distance LTL producer price index, a measure of total LTL costs paid by shippers, was up 10.5% year over year in August, the last month for which data is available thanks to the US government shutdown. In discussions with shippers, “the tone is starting to shift,” Mario Harik, CEO of XPO, the fourth-largest US LTL provider, said in an interview. “A lot of customers are concerned about capacity. They can go to a discount carrier, but when the market starts to turn, will they have capacity? More and more customers expect a recovery in 2026.” <h3>Limited expectations </h3>Harik spoke with the Journal of Commerce before XPO’s earnings call with Wall Street analysts Thursday. ODFL, the second-largest US LTL carrier, released earnings Wednesday, and Saia, ranked sixth among LTL carriers by revenue, announced results Thursday. Their results differed, but their expectations were similar. “Demand feels consistent to me, but obviously we haven’t seen the inflection that we’ve all been waiting for,” ODFL CEO Adam Satterfield said Wednesday. “When will the market change? I mean, that’s obviously the big question. I’ve asked ChatGPT that, and it suggests next year. So who knows? We’ll see if AI is right or another economic forecast [is].” Saia’s shipper customers are “incrementally more positive” about prospects for 2026, CEO Frederick Holzgrefe told analysts Thursday. “We’ve got a view of the tariff landscape,” he said. “We’ve got a view of tax policy. We’ve got a view around interest rates. All that is incrementally positive, right? I’m waiting to see it in the numbers.” So far, the numbers are mostly negative in terms of volume. ODFL’s average daily shipment (ADS) count dropped 7.9% year over year in the third quarter. At XPO, the ADS fell 3.5%, while Saia’s shipments dropped 1.9% from a year ago. “We are not yet seeing a demand recovery,” XPO’s Harik said, and he doesn’t expect one in the fourth quarter. “Customers expect the market to be steady” through the end of 2025, he said. “Things aren’t getting better, but they’re not getting worse.” Customers do expect improvement in 2026, Harik said. For one, a drop in the federal funds rate could stimulate industrial demand and more corporate investment. “We have all these tailwinds,” he said. <h3>Established strategies </h3>ODFL, XPO and Saia are taking long-established approaches to the market as they wait for those tailwinds to blow. ODFL’s third-quarter decline in daily shipments was accompanied by a 4.3% annualized drop in revenue to $1.4 billion. The company remains highly profitable despite a 12.2% drop in net profit to $271 million, with a 74.3% operating ratio. ODFL has consistently been willing to protect its bottom line at the expense of top-line revenue, maintaining a premium price to protect profit margin rather than trying to use price to gain market share — a model many LTL carriers are trying to emulate. “We want to win market share; we don’t want to go out and try to take it,” said Satterfield. Saia’s revenue fell 0.3% year over year in the quarter to $839.6 million, while its net profit dropped 6.9% to $86.3 million. Its operating ratio rose slightly to 85.9%. Saia hopes to grow “share of wallet” by gaining new business from existing customers as it realigns its network, which has expanded nationwide with 39 new terminals since 2022, many of them purchased from Yellow. “It’s really not about how quickly we can grow shipment count for the sake of shipment count,” CFO Matthew Batteh said. XPO is adding new customers, onboarding 2,500 small business shippers in the third quarter and 7,500 year to date, Harik said. Those “local” customers now account for 25% of XPO’s LTL revenue, he said. The carrier is also gaining revenue from new premium services launched over the past year that carry a higher price, generating more revenue. XPO’s North American LTL revenue rose 0.3% to $1.3 billion. Operating income for the North American LTL business rose 9.6% to $217 million, although overall net income dropped 13.7% to $82 million. “We’re still in the early innings” of a freight recovery, Harik told analysts. “When the cycle starts turning, we’ll improve even more.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US less-than-truckload (LTL) providers are pursuing highly individualized paths in an anemic freight market, with shipment volumes rising but still lower than a year ago. Three of the largest LTL carriers this week reported gains in average revenue per hundredweight for the third quarter, a sign that their pricing is not falling despite a weak market. LTL revenue per hundredweight, with or without fuel surcharges, was up 4.7% year over year at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in the third quarter. At XPO, it rose 5.8% with surcharges and 5.9% without them. Saia reported a 0.5% increase in LTL revenue per hundredweight including surcharges and a 0.1% drop without them. Even with a flatter yield, Saia reported an average contract pricing renewal rate of 5.1% for the quarter. The company recently announced a 5.9% general rate increase (GRI) for non-contract tariff rates, which was effective Oct. 1. ODFL is pursuing a 4.9% non-contract GRI, effective Nov. 3, while LTL sector leader FedEx Freight will seek a 5.9% GRI on Jan. 5. The motor carriers reject claims that LTL carrier pricing discipline is weakening under the pressure of low freight demand. The US long-distance LTL producer price index, a measure of total LTL costs paid by shippers, was up 10.5% year over year in August, the last month for which data is available thanks to the US government shutdown. In discussions with shippers, “the tone is starting to shift,” Mario Harik, CEO of XPO, the fourth-largest US LTL provider, said in an interview. “A lot of customers are concerned about capacity. They can go to a discount carrier, but when the market starts to turn, will they have capacity? More and more customers expect a recovery in 2026.” Limited expectations Harik spoke with the Journal of Commerce before XPO’s earnings call with Wall Street analysts Thursday. ODFL, the second-largest US LTL carrier, released earnings Wednesday, and Saia, ranked sixth among LTL carriers by revenue, announced results Thursday. Their results differed, but their expectations were similar. “Demand feels consistent to me, but obviously we haven’t seen the inflection that we’ve all been waiting for,” ODFL CEO Adam Satterfield said Wednesday. “When will the market change? I mean, that’s obviously the big question. I’ve asked ChatGPT that, and it suggests next year. So who knows? We’ll see if AI is right or another economic forecast [is].” Saia’s shipper customers are “incrementally more positive” about prospects for 2026, CEO Frederick Holzgrefe told analysts Thursday. “We’ve got a view of the tariff landscape,” he said. “We’ve got a view of tax policy. We’ve got a view around interest rates. All that is incrementally positive, right? I’m waiting to see it in the numbers.” So far, the numbers are mostly negative in terms of volume. ODFL’s average daily shipment (ADS) count dropped 7.9% year over year in the third quarter. At XPO, the ADS fell 3.5%, while Saia’s shipments dropped 1.9% from a year ago. “We are not yet seeing a demand recovery,” XPO’s Harik said, and he doesn’t expect one in the fourth quarter. “Customers expect the market to be steady” through the end of 2025, he said. “Things aren’t getting better, but they’re not getting worse.” Customers do expect improvement in 2026, Harik said. For one, a drop in the federal funds rate could stimulate industrial demand and more corporate investment. “We have all these tailwinds,” he said. Established strategies ODFL, XPO and Saia are taking long-established approaches to the market as they wait for those tailwinds to blow. ODFL’s third-quarter decline in daily shipments was accompanied by a 4.3% annualized drop in revenue to $1.4 billion. The company remains highly profitable despite a 12.2% drop in net profit to $271 million, with a 74.3% operating ratio. ODFL has consistently been willing to protect its bottom line at the expense of top-line revenue, maintaining a premium price to protect profit margin rather than trying to use price to gain market share — a model many LTL carriers are trying to emulate. “We want to win market share; we don’t want to go out and try to take it,” said Satterfield. Saia’s revenue fell 0.3% year over year in the quarter to $839.6 million, while its net profit dropped 6.9% to $86.3 million. Its operating ratio rose slightly to 85.9%. Saia hopes to grow “share of wallet” by gaining new business from existing customers as it realigns its network, which has expanded nationwide with 39 new terminals since 2022, many of them purchased from Yellow. “It’s really not about how quickly we can grow shipment count for the sake of shipment count,” CFO Matthew Batteh said. XPO is adding new customers, onboarding 2,500 small business shippers in the third quarter and 7,500 year to date, Harik said. Those “local” customers now account for 25% of XPO’s LTL revenue, he said. The carrier is also gaining revenue from new premium services launched over the past year that carry a higher price, generating more revenue. XPO’s North American LTL revenue rose 0.3% to $1.3 billion. Operating income for the North American LTL business rose 9.6% to $217 million, although overall net income dropped 13.7% to $82 million. “We’re still in the early innings” of a freight recovery, Harik told analysts. “When the cycle starts turning, we’ll improve even more.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Top LTL carriers maintain profit while planning paths to freight recovery

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Recent tensions involved CPKC’s opposition to the UP-NS merger, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the Meridian Speedway. </div>

Recent tensions involved CPKC’s opposition to the UP-NS merger, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the Meridian Speedway.

<div class="phx-topic">Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is escalating its dispute with rivals Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), taking aim at the two over intermodal service in the US Southeast while reiterating criticism of their proposed merger. CPKC was one of the first railroads to come out against the $85 billion deal between UP and NS, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-pushes-back-on-ns-complaint-over-meridian-track-access-6090887">Meridian Speedway</a>. The Meridian Speedway represents the fastest way to route cargo from California to the US Southeast, but intermodal service has deteriorated significantly in 2025. CPKC owns 70% of the joint venture operating the Speedway, shuttling cargo between UP and NS in addition to its own freight in the corridor. NS, which filed a complaint to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) on Sept. 30, alleges that more than two-thirds of the trains on Meridian in August took longer than the contractually guaranteed 13-hour transit, resulting in a 10% decline in volume as shippers such as FedEx and UPS trucked shipments to avoid the delays. CPKC on Wednesday called the NS complaint a “self-serving narrative” without merit. “There was infrastructure built for 8,500-foot trains, but our predecessors at [Kansas City Southern] allowed NS to run long trains,” CPKC CEO Keith Creel said on the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “That’s what we stopped, and that’s what NS and UP do not like.” UP CEO Jim Vena told the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference on Oct. 1 that he was unhappy with the restrictions implemented by CPKC. “We started running two trains because we’re not leaving the customer traffic behind,” Vena said at the conference. “[CPKC was] delaying both trains. The amount of delay on the first train was excessive and then our second train sat around for 12, 16, 24 hours at times.” But Creel argued that Meridian’s rail siding — akin to a shoulder on a highway — was not built to handle the 10,000- to 12,000-foot trains routinely delivered by UP and NS. When two trains need to use the same track, the CPKC train is the one parked on the siding because it’s the only one that fits. “Our trains are taking over an 11-hour delay per day to accommodate a longer train. It doesn’t make any sense,” Creel said on the CPKC call. “I’m not going to subsidize NS’ operation, nor am I going to subsidize UP’s operation for their operational synergies at the cost of my service to my customers. I have a responsibility to protect my customers as well. [Meridian is] built to run 8,500-foot trains. That’s what we’re going to do.” CPKC and NS have reached a temporary truce allowing one long eastbound train per day through mid-November, when a new CPKC crew will be added and restrictions return to 8,500 feet. NS agreed to compensate CPKC for delays to its trains. The STB is closed during the government shutdown, preventing any action on the dispute. <h3>CPKC again attacks UP-NS transaction </h3>Creel on Wednesday also elaborated on why CPKC opposes the UP-NS merger, urging the STB not to rush the regulatory process. “I know there’s an echo chamber. I read it, I hear it, I sense it,” Creel said. “I know there’s a lot of invested investors that perhaps want this to be a layup. This is not a layup.” He cautioned that UP must clear a high hurdle to get approval, calling it “a hurdle not even remotely close to being the same” as the lower one applied when Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern in 2023. Creel said the STB also remembers how UP suffered significant service failures four years ago, and if the deal was approved, UP-NS would control more than 40% of US rail traffic. Creel rejected the idea that the concerns of CPKC, a Canada-based company, will fall on deaf ears in Washington. “One-third of our employees live, work and are taxpaying [citizens] in the United States ... we are undeniably wrapped in the American flag,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is escalating its dispute with rivals Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), taking aim at the two over intermodal service in the US Southeast while reiterating criticism of their proposed merger. CPKC was one of the first railroads to come out against the $85 billion deal between UP and NS, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the Meridian Speedway . The Meridian Speedway represents the fastest way to route cargo from California to the US Southeast, but intermodal service has deteriorated significantly in 2025. CPKC owns 70% of the joint venture operating the Speedway, shuttling cargo between UP and NS in addition to its own freight in the corridor. NS, which filed a complaint to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) on Sept. 30, alleges that more than two-thirds of the trains on Meridian in August took longer than the contractually guaranteed 13-hour transit, resulting in a 10% decline in volume as shippers such as FedEx and UPS trucked shipments to avoid the delays. CPKC on Wednesday called the NS complaint a “self-serving narrative” without merit. “There was infrastructure built for 8,500-foot trains, but our predecessors at [Kansas City Southern] allowed NS to run long trains,” CPKC CEO Keith Creel said on the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “That’s what we stopped, and that’s what NS and UP do not like.” UP CEO Jim Vena told the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference on Oct. 1 that he was unhappy with the restrictions implemented by CPKC. “We started running two trains because we’re not leaving the customer traffic behind,” Vena said at the conference. “[CPKC was] delaying both trains. The amount of delay on the first train was excessive and then our second train sat around for 12, 16, 24 hours at times.” But Creel argued that Meridian’s rail siding — akin to a shoulder on a highway — was not built to handle the 10,000- to 12,000-foot trains routinely delivered by UP and NS. When two trains need to use the same track, the CPKC train is the one parked on the siding because it’s the only one that fits. “Our trains are taking over an 11-hour delay per day to accommodate a longer train. It doesn’t make any sense,” Creel said on the CPKC call. “I’m not going to subsidize NS’ operation, nor am I going to subsidize UP’s operation for their operational synergies at the cost of my service to my customers. I have a responsibility to protect my customers as well. [Meridian is] built to run 8,500-foot trains. That’s what we’re going to do.” CPKC and NS have reached a temporary truce allowing one long eastbound train per day through mid-November, when a new CPKC crew will be added and restrictions return to 8,500 feet. NS agreed to compensate CPKC for delays to its trains. The STB is closed during the government shutdown, preventing any action on the dispute. CPKC again attacks UP-NS transaction Creel on Wednesday also elaborated on why CPKC opposes the UP-NS merger, urging the STB not to rush the regulatory process. “I know there’s an echo chamber. I read it, I hear it, I sense it,” Creel said. “I know there’s a lot of invested investors that perhaps want this to be a layup. This is not a layup.” He cautioned that UP must clear a high hurdle to get approval, calling it “a hurdle not even remotely close to being the same” as the lower one applied when Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern in 2023. Creel said the STB also remembers how UP suffered significant service failures four years ago, and if the deal was approved, UP-NS would control more than 40% of US rail traffic. Creel rejected the idea that the concerns of CPKC, a Canada-based company, will fall on deaf ears in Washington. “One-third of our employees live, work and are taxpaying [citizens] in the United States ... we are undeniably wrapped in the American flag,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

CPKC slams UP, NS on Meridian congestion, merger plans

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger proceeds, the balance of power inside a little-known cooperative that serves as the industry’s shared equipment pool could shift dramatically.</div>

If the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger proceeds, the balance of power inside a little-known cooperative that serves as the industry’s shared equipment pool could shift dramatically.

<div class="phx-topic">When your railroad says “no cars available,” the problem usually isn’t a shortage. It’s a cooperative most shippers have never heard of — one that controls nearly every intermodal container, autorack and flatcar in North America. And if the proposed Union Pacific (UP)–Norfolk Southern (NS) merger proceeds, the balance of power inside that cooperative could shift dramatically. That cooperative is TTX Company. While shippers and unions debate potential service disruptions and job losses from the $85 billion merger announced in July, a more fundamental question has gone unasked: What happens when one railroad becomes the dominant voice in the industry’s shared equipment pool? <h3>The system you didn’t know existed </h3>TTX manages approximately 177,000 well cars, flats, autoracks and boxcars, representing about $17 billion in assets. It’s a neutral pool owned collectively by the Class I railroads, operating under Surface Transportation Board (STB) oversight since 1974. The concept is simple: Competing railroads share rolling stock rather than hoarding it. When a car finishes one move, it can be loaded again immediately, regardless of whose track it’s on next. This model has saved the industry billions in duplicate investment and given shippers a measure of reliability in an otherwise fragmented system. Cars flow to demand, not ownership. Repairs are standardized. Procurement is centralized. Until now, no single railroad has had enough control to tilt the playing field. <h3>Why the merger changes everything </h3>The combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern network would span nearly 60% of US rail route miles across 43 states, likely making them TTX’s largest shareholder by a significant margin. On paper, neutrality is guaranteed through the STB’s pooling agreement. In practice, concentration of influence can change incentives subtly, but powerfully. Who prioritizes which lanes for car replacement? Who decides where limited heavy-duty flats or autoracks are deployed first? When I was at Maersk negotiating large-scale rail contracts, we constantly ran into a black hole of visibility. Equipment was technically available, but no one could pinpoint where it was or who controlled the next move. The pooling model made coordination possible, but it also made accountability diffuse. Now imagine that opacity combined with ownership concentration. A railroad controlling the largest stake in TTX doesn’t need to explicitly starve competitors of equipment. It just needs to optimize for its own network first. Repairs get prioritized in its lanes. New equipment gets spec’d for its corridors. Allocation algorithms favor its terminals. The result isn’t dramatic — it’s death by a thousand micro-decisions that tilt velocity in one direction. <h3>What gravity looks like </h3>Every time a major shipper changes carriers, the math inside the TTX pool shifts. Steel doesn’t teleport. Cars must physically migrate through the network, a process that can take weeks. Shortages often follow commercial wins because the new carrier gains the freight before it gains the equipment. Even in a neutral pool, gravity takes time to reset. Post-merger, that shock absorption could become selective. If car allocation subtly favors the combined UP-NS lanes, competitors lose not just freight; they lose the equipment velocity needed to compete for the next contract. <h3>What the STB should do </h3>The STB received formal notice of the merger on July 30, 2025. The railroads plan to file their full application by Jan. 29, 2026, triggering a 16-month statutory review. The STB has broad authority to preserve equilibrium through independent TTX governance, fleet-allocation audits and service-performance metrics tied to pooling access. Whether those powers are used will determine if TTX remains the stabilizer it was built to be, or becomes another lever of competitive advantage hidden inside consolidation. The 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger produced what the head of the nation’s largest rail union called a “massive meltdown.” Service disruptions lasted months. The STB should apply those lessons to equipment pooling now, before approval — not after the damage is done. <h3>What shippers should ask now </h3>Most customers never deal directly with TTX, but they feel its influence in every service metric. Don’t wait until after the merger is approved. Start asking pointed questions now: How do you measure car velocity in my lanes? Who controls the pool cars that serve my freight? What protections ensure neutrality if ownership concentration shifts? If your railroad can’t answer clearly, you’re not buying transportation, you’re buying uncertainty. <h3>The bottom line </h3>TTX doesn’t appear in marketing campaigns, but its model — shared steel, shared access — keeps the industry balanced. The merger debate has focused on jobs, rates and service promises. But the real test will be whether a system designed for competition can survive when one player holds the dominant stake. Because when the pool tips, everyone feels it. And once gravity shifts, it doesn’t shift back. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals &amp; Switches. Contact him at  <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

When your railroad says “no cars available,” the problem usually isn’t a shortage. It’s a cooperative most shippers have never heard of — one that controls nearly every intermodal container, autorack and flatcar in North America. And if the proposed Union Pacific (UP)–Norfolk Southern (NS) merger proceeds, the balance of power inside that cooperative could shift dramatically. That cooperative is TTX Company. While shippers and unions debate potential service disruptions and job losses from the $85 billion merger announced in July, a more fundamental question has gone unasked: What happens when one railroad becomes the dominant voice in the industry’s shared equipment pool? The system you didn’t know existed TTX manages approximately 177,000 well cars, flats, autoracks and boxcars, representing about $17 billion in assets. It’s a neutral pool owned collectively by the Class I railroads, operating under Surface Transportation Board (STB) oversight since 1974. The concept is simple: Competing railroads share rolling stock rather than hoarding it. When a car finishes one move, it can be loaded again immediately, regardless of whose track it’s on next. This model has saved the industry billions in duplicate investment and given shippers a measure of reliability in an otherwise fragmented system. Cars flow to demand, not ownership. Repairs are standardized. Procurement is centralized. Until now, no single railroad has had enough control to tilt the playing field. Why the merger changes everything The combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern network would span nearly 60% of US rail route miles across 43 states, likely making them TTX’s largest shareholder by a significant margin. On paper, neutrality is guaranteed through the STB’s pooling agreement. In practice, concentration of influence can change incentives subtly, but powerfully. Who prioritizes which lanes for car replacement? Who decides where limited heavy-duty flats or autoracks are deployed first? When I was at Maersk negotiating large-scale rail contracts, we constantly ran into a black hole of visibility. Equipment was technically available, but no one could pinpoint where it was or who controlled the next move. The pooling model made coordination possible, but it also made accountability diffuse. Now imagine that opacity combined with ownership concentration. A railroad controlling the largest stake in TTX doesn’t need to explicitly starve competitors of equipment. It just needs to optimize for its own network first. Repairs get prioritized in its lanes. New equipment gets spec’d for its corridors. Allocation algorithms favor its terminals. The result isn’t dramatic — it’s death by a thousand micro-decisions that tilt velocity in one direction. What gravity looks like Every time a major shipper changes carriers, the math inside the TTX pool shifts. Steel doesn’t teleport. Cars must physically migrate through the network, a process that can take weeks. Shortages often follow commercial wins because the new carrier gains the freight before it gains the equipment. Even in a neutral pool, gravity takes time to reset. Post-merger, that shock absorption could become selective. If car allocation subtly favors the combined UP-NS lanes, competitors lose not just freight; they lose the equipment velocity needed to compete for the next contract. What the STB should do The STB received formal notice of the merger on July 30, 2025. The railroads plan to file their full application by Jan. 29, 2026, triggering a 16-month statutory review. The STB has broad authority to preserve equilibrium through independent TTX governance, fleet-allocation audits and service-performance metrics tied to pooling access. Whether those powers are used will determine if TTX remains the stabilizer it was built to be, or becomes another lever of competitive advantage hidden inside consolidation. The 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger produced what the head of the nation’s largest rail union called a “massive meltdown.” Service disruptions lasted months. The STB should apply those lessons to equipment pooling now, before approval — not after the damage is done. What shippers should ask now Most customers never deal directly with TTX, but they feel its influence in every service metric. Don’t wait until after the merger is approved. Start asking pointed questions now: How do you measure car velocity in my lanes? Who controls the pool cars that serve my freight? What protections ensure neutrality if ownership concentration shifts? If your railroad can’t answer clearly, you’re not buying transportation, you’re buying uncertainty. The bottom line TTX doesn’t appear in marketing campaigns, but its model — shared steel, shared access — keeps the industry balanced. The merger debate has focused on jobs, rates and service promises. But the real test will be whether a system designed for competition can survive when one player holds the dominant stake. Because when the pool tips, everyone feels it. And once gravity shifts, it doesn’t shift back. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals & Switches. Contact him at   paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

UP-NS merger could mean new dominant voice inside rail industry cooperative

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility. </div>

The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility.

<div class="phx-topic">The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. <h3>Technology can ease challenges </h3>The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at <a href="mailto:northw@shiplify.com">northw@shiplify.com</a>. Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at <a href="mailto:bart@bartdemuynck.com">bart@bartdemuynck.com</a>. </div>

The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. Technology can ease challenges The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at northw@shiplify.com . Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at bart@bartdemuynck.com .

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Dry Van

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {van_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Flatbed

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {flatbed_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Refrigerated

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Weekly % change: {reefer_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

DAT Freight & Analytics is an independent source of truckload pricing and business intelligence. Using an automated daily process, DAT collects invoices from nearly 1,200 transportation companies totaling more than $137 billion in freight spend annually. It verifies and updates data daily; each market rate reported in RateView Analytics requires a minimum number of submissions, so prices cannot be manipulated; and the algorithms account for outliers. [DAT](https://dat.com)

US dry-van, flatbed and refrigerated truckload spot rates (DAT)

US Truckload spot rates weekly (DAT) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The largest US intermodal provider’s relationships with competing eastern railroads Norfolk Southern and CSX are shifting and will continue evolving through 2026 as the proposed merger between NS and UP winds its way through the regulatory process. </div>

The largest US intermodal provider’s relationships with competing eastern railroads Norfolk Southern and CSX are shifting and will continue evolving through 2026 as the proposed merger between NS and UP winds its way through the regulatory process.

<div class="phx-topic">If federal regulators approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), J.B. Hunt Transport Services — the largest US intermodal provider — could be forced to rethink how it routes both coast-to-coast and East Coast freight. J.B. Hunt’s relationships with Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation are already shifting and will continue evolving through 2026. How much will change is unclear, however, as J.B. Hunt wants relationships with both eastern railroads, even if Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern become one. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6105166_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The stakes couldn’t be higher. J.B. Hunt handles more than two million intermodal loads a year and controls more than 125,000 containers, a fleet larger than the combined totals of competing intermodal providers C.H. Robinson, Hub Group, Schneider National, Swift Intermodal and several peers. On the West Coast, J.B. Hunt and BNSF Railway operate under the long-standing Quantum Agreement, a joint-service partnership created more than 35 years ago. In the East, J.B. relies primarily on Norfolk Southern, but has steadily expanded its CSX footprint in recent years. If UP acquired NS, some industry analysts have speculated J.B. Hunt would shift everything to CSX. The premise is based on the budding relationship between BNSF and CSX. “[It] has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX. That’s not accurate at all,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 16 earnings call. “There’s nothing [about the merger] that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint we have today would be required to change.” In a sense, though, the relationship has already begun to change. J.B. Hunt uses the new BNSF-CSX service launched in September from Phoenix to Atlanta and Southern California to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsf-csx-unveil-new-joint-intermodal-lanes-in-aftermath-of-up-ns-merger-6067789">Charlotte and Jacksonville</a>. Other BNSF and CSX combinations could include J.B. Hunt along the way. NS referenced the J.B. Hunt volume loss in the Southeast during its most recent earnings call. “While not big in the third quarter, we started to see some of the revenue erosion from competitor reactions to the merger,” NS CEO Mark George said on the Oct. 24 call. “We expect the impact to grow in the fourth quarter and continue to be a challenge over the near and medium term.” BNSF, which has waged a campaign against the UP-NS merger, warns that 300 intermodal lanes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ceo-pushing-to-file-formal-ns-merger-application-by-dec-1-6102362">could vanish</a> if the deal is approved, including all BNSF-NS interchanges. Likewise, CSX has said publicly that collaboration, not consolidation, can address the reasons why shippers still choose trucks over rail. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to take sides to keep the peace with NS and CSX. “Our long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX and BNSF should provide the basis for us to adapt to any changes in the industry,” J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson said on the company’s Oct. 16 earnings call. Strong rail service is one reason why J.B. Hunt grew its local East Coast intermodal volume by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-intermodal-volume-retracts-amid-cost-cutting-measures-6098480">6% year over year</a> in the third quarter, while West Coast freight dropped 6% during the same period. <h3>Norfolk Southern remains crucial </h3>The gravitational pull to BNSF and CSX is expected to strengthen in 2026. One industry source, who asked not to be identified, told the Journal of Commerce that J.B. Hunt is involved in every BNSF-CSX discussion on joint services, providing volume commitments to bolster the products from the outset. Nevertheless, NS remains central to J.B. Hunt’s eastern network. More than half of J.B. Hunt’s business with NS remains in the eastern US, according to the railroad. NS provides J.B. Hunt with access to major distribution centers strewn across central Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Bethlehem and Harrisburg. CSX cannot replicate that opportunity. NS also provides a single-line service between Kansas City and the East Coast, while CSX doesn’t operate in Kansas City. And the separate Crescent Corridor serves as a competitive edge — a double-stack-cleared NS route from Memphis through Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg to Newark — providing faster transits than CSX on high-volume routes. UP has also offered to honor the J.B. Hunt-Norfolk Southern partnership. “If J.B. Hunt wants to still do lanes within the East with Norfolk Southern like they do today, we’ll certainly let them do that,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at the Journal of Commerce’s Inland 2025 Distribution Conference on Oct. 1. The UP-J.B. Hunt relationship makes sense for both sides. UP retains access to a large number of intermodal shipments, while J.B. Hunt can continue to provide truck-competitive services to shippers. <h3>The CSX pull will only grow </h3>The pull toward CSX will intensify, however, as its partnership with BNSF expands. With Southeast service now live, BNSF and CSX are eyeing the Northeast. CSX’s double-stack clearance through Baltimore <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">next spring</a> could unlock additional joint BNSF-CSX routes from Southern California to Philadelphia and Newark, covering nearly every major East Coast hub from Florida to New Jersey. Striking such a deal makes economic sense for all parties. Details of the BNSF-J.B. Hunt Quantum Agreement are limited, but it functions as a one-of-a-kind intermodal revenue-sharing model. The formula has never been disclosed, but Quantum links BNSF and J.B. Hunt’s profitability to the volume on their intermodal lanes. If BNSF secures favorable terms with CSX, then everyone stands to benefit. The pool of revenue split between BNSF and J.B. Hunt is higher, especially if CSX charges less than NS. If a deal includes a seamless interchange, such as the one in Birmingham, for example, then J.B. Hunt’s expenses are lower, also increasing the shared revenue pool. And CSX wins by taking market share away from NS, its chief rival. J.B. Hunt must tread carefully, deepening its CSX ties without severing them with Norfolk Southern. That two-way pressure could spur both eastern railroads to compete harder, ultimately benefiting shippers along the way. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

If federal regulators approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), J.B. Hunt Transport Services — the largest US intermodal provider — could be forced to rethink how it routes both coast-to-coast and East Coast freight. J.B. Hunt’s relationships with Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation are already shifting and will continue evolving through 2026. How much will change is unclear, however, as J.B. Hunt wants relationships with both eastern railroads, even if Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern become one. The stakes couldn’t be higher. J.B. Hunt handles more than two million intermodal loads a year and controls more than 125,000 containers, a fleet larger than the combined totals of competing intermodal providers C.H. Robinson, Hub Group, Schneider National, Swift Intermodal and several peers. On the West Coast, J.B. Hunt and BNSF Railway operate under the long-standing Quantum Agreement, a joint-service partnership created more than 35 years ago. In the East, J.B. relies primarily on Norfolk Southern, but has steadily expanded its CSX footprint in recent years. If UP acquired NS, some industry analysts have speculated J.B. Hunt would shift everything to CSX. The premise is based on the budding relationship between BNSF and CSX. “[It] has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX. That’s not accurate at all,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 16 earnings call. “There’s nothing [about the merger] that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint we have today would be required to change.” In a sense, though, the relationship has already begun to change. J.B. Hunt uses the new BNSF-CSX service launched in September from Phoenix to Atlanta and Southern California to Charlotte and Jacksonville . Other BNSF and CSX combinations could include J.B. Hunt along the way. NS referenced the J.B. Hunt volume loss in the Southeast during its most recent earnings call. “While not big in the third quarter, we started to see some of the revenue erosion from competitor reactions to the merger,” NS CEO Mark George said on the Oct. 24 call. “We expect the impact to grow in the fourth quarter and continue to be a challenge over the near and medium term.” BNSF, which has waged a campaign against the UP-NS merger, warns that 300 intermodal lanes could vanish if the deal is approved, including all BNSF-NS interchanges. Likewise, CSX has said publicly that collaboration, not consolidation, can address the reasons why shippers still choose trucks over rail. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to take sides to keep the peace with NS and CSX. “Our long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX and BNSF should provide the basis for us to adapt to any changes in the industry,” J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson said on the company’s Oct. 16 earnings call. Strong rail service is one reason why J.B. Hunt grew its local East Coast intermodal volume by 6% year over year in the third quarter, while West Coast freight dropped 6% during the same period. Norfolk Southern remains crucial The gravitational pull to BNSF and CSX is expected to strengthen in 2026. One industry source, who asked not to be identified, told the Journal of Commerce that J.B. Hunt is involved in every BNSF-CSX discussion on joint services, providing volume commitments to bolster the products from the outset. Nevertheless, NS remains central to J.B. Hunt’s eastern network. More than half of J.B. Hunt’s business with NS remains in the eastern US, according to the railroad. NS provides J.B. Hunt with access to major distribution centers strewn across central Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Bethlehem and Harrisburg. CSX cannot replicate that opportunity. NS also provides a single-line service between Kansas City and the East Coast, while CSX doesn’t operate in Kansas City. And the separate Crescent Corridor serves as a competitive edge — a double-stack-cleared NS route from Memphis through Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg to Newark — providing faster transits than CSX on high-volume routes. UP has also offered to honor the J.B. Hunt-Norfolk Southern partnership. “If J.B. Hunt wants to still do lanes within the East with Norfolk Southern like they do today, we’ll certainly let them do that,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at the Journal of Commerce’s Inland 2025 Distribution Conference on Oct. 1. The UP-J.B. Hunt relationship makes sense for both sides. UP retains access to a large number of intermodal shipments, while J.B. Hunt can continue to provide truck-competitive services to shippers. The CSX pull will only grow The pull toward CSX will intensify, however, as its partnership with BNSF expands. With Southeast service now live, BNSF and CSX are eyeing the Northeast. CSX’s double-stack clearance through Baltimore next spring could unlock additional joint BNSF-CSX routes from Southern California to Philadelphia and Newark, covering nearly every major East Coast hub from Florida to New Jersey. Striking such a deal makes economic sense for all parties. Details of the BNSF-J.B. Hunt Quantum Agreement are limited, but it functions as a one-of-a-kind intermodal revenue-sharing model. The formula has never been disclosed, but Quantum links BNSF and J.B. Hunt’s profitability to the volume on their intermodal lanes. If BNSF secures favorable terms with CSX, then everyone stands to benefit. The pool of revenue split between BNSF and J.B. Hunt is higher, especially if CSX charges less than NS. If a deal includes a seamless interchange, such as the one in Birmingham, for example, then J.B. Hunt’s expenses are lower, also increasing the shared revenue pool. And CSX wins by taking market share away from NS, its chief rival. J.B. Hunt must tread carefully, deepening its CSX ties without severing them with Norfolk Southern. That two-way pressure could spur both eastern railroads to compete harder, ultimately benefiting shippers along the way. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

J.B. Hunt’s East Coast strategy is shifting as rail alliances realign

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the state will pass, for now, on any proposals being pushed by port stakeholders to raise the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, a move that would allow bigger vessels to call at three of the port’s terminals.</div>

But the state will pass, for now, on any proposals being pushed by port stakeholders to raise the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, a move that would allow bigger vessels to call at three of the port’s terminals.

<div class="phx-topic">The redecking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles harbor will start early next year as planned, while an effort by the port and terminal operators to raise the clearance of the span to facilitate the passage of super post-Panamax container ships is looking unlikely in the short term. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) told port stakeholders over the past two weeks it is paramount that redecking work begin soon on the 63-year-old bridge before any attempt is made to raise the height of the structure, according to Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). Jacob said PMSA, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, is onboard with the agency in this matter. “The funding is there [for the redecking],” he said. “The engineering is done. It received environmental clearance.” CalSTA, the cabinet level agency that oversees transportation-related departments, said the state has access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete the necessary structural and safety repairs of the bridge. In a statement Tuesday to the Journal of Commerce regarding the possibility of raising the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, CalSTA said it “welcomes continued discussions to a path forward for that possibility while we work to make sure the bridge is structurally sound and safe for the motoring public in the meantime.” The Vincent Thomas Bridge, located at the entry to Los Angeles harbor, handles 53,000 vehicles a day, including about 3,400 heavy-duty trucks, according to Caltrans. Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout the redecking project. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-wants-california-to-raise-bridge-to-accommodate-big-ships-6087396">said the current limit on vessels passing under the structure is 15,000 TEUs in capacity</a>. Increasing the clearance from 185 feet to 211 feet will allow up to 23,000-TEU vessels to reach the three terminals on the land side of the bridge: Yusen Terminals, TraPac and West Basin. There are six container terminals in total in Los Angeles. <h3>Caltrans attempting to minimize traffic disruptions </h3>The redecking project, scheduled to begin in January, will require one-directional bridge closures for nine months. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-stakeholders-warming-to-plan-to-mitigate-impact-of-bridge-project-6013847">Full closure of the bridge will occur from November 2026 to March 2028</a>, a Caltrans representative told a meeting of the Propeller Club of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May. Caltrans has identified an alternative network of surface streets that will allow truck and vehicular traffic to move into and out of the harbor area during the lengthy bridge closure. Street upgrades are underway, and Caltrans has set up a communications network for real-time traffic updates, the agency representative said. If the state adopted the port’s plan to raise the bridge clearance by 26 feet, the total cost of the project would increase from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion, and the bridge closure would increase from 16 months to 28 months. Seroka told the Journal of Commerce the port and terminal operators will maintain a dialogue with the state on eventually raising the height of the bridge. “While we were hopeful that we would be able to include a bridge raising component into Caltrans’ pending critical maintenance project, we’re encouraged by the strong support of the administration to quickly explore additional projects, which could include raising the bridge or building a new crossing,” Seroka said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The redecking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles harbor will start early next year as planned, while an effort by the port and terminal operators to raise the clearance of the span to facilitate the passage of super post-Panamax container ships is looking unlikely in the short term. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) told port stakeholders over the past two weeks it is paramount that redecking work begin soon on the 63-year-old bridge before any attempt is made to raise the height of the structure, according to Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). Jacob said PMSA, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, is onboard with the agency in this matter. “The funding is there [for the redecking],” he said. “The engineering is done. It received environmental clearance.” CalSTA, the cabinet level agency that oversees transportation-related departments, said the state has access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete the necessary structural and safety repairs of the bridge. In a statement Tuesday to the Journal of Commerce regarding the possibility of raising the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, CalSTA said it “welcomes continued discussions to a path forward for that possibility while we work to make sure the bridge is structurally sound and safe for the motoring public in the meantime.” The Vincent Thomas Bridge, located at the entry to Los Angeles harbor, handles 53,000 vehicles a day, including about 3,400 heavy-duty trucks, according to Caltrans. Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout the redecking project. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said the current limit on vessels passing under the structure is 15,000 TEUs in capacity . Increasing the clearance from 185 feet to 211 feet will allow up to 23,000-TEU vessels to reach the three terminals on the land side of the bridge: Yusen Terminals, TraPac and West Basin. There are six container terminals in total in Los Angeles. Caltrans attempting to minimize traffic disruptions The redecking project, scheduled to begin in January, will require one-directional bridge closures for nine months. Full closure of the bridge will occur from November 2026 to March 2028 , a Caltrans representative told a meeting of the Propeller Club of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May. Caltrans has identified an alternative network of surface streets that will allow truck and vehicular traffic to move into and out of the harbor area during the lengthy bridge closure. Street upgrades are underway, and Caltrans has set up a communications network for real-time traffic updates, the agency representative said. If the state adopted the port’s plan to raise the bridge clearance by 26 feet, the total cost of the project would increase from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion, and the bridge closure would increase from 16 months to 28 months. Seroka told the Journal of Commerce the port and terminal operators will maintain a dialogue with the state on eventually raising the height of the bridge. “While we were hopeful that we would be able to include a bridge raising component into Caltrans’ pending critical maintenance project, we’re encouraged by the strong support of the administration to quickly explore additional projects, which could include raising the bridge or building a new crossing,” Seroka said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Redecking project on Los Angeles harbor bridge to begin in early 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050. </div>

With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050.

<div class="phx-topic">With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6104141_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/delay-in-imo-decarbonization-plans-robs-green-fuel-investors-of-certainty-6101250">punted on its net-zero framework</a>, LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="82b6ff12-d7ca-420a-abbe-7b9998b29e56"></dynamic-object></div>And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/faqs-the-imo-net-zero-framework.aspx">Net-Zero Framework</a> that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO punted on its net-zero framework , LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO Net-Zero Framework that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED

Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code FSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

In 1995, we began operations with a clear vision: to grow alongside Mexico and connect the world through our terminals. Our priority has always been to deliver excellence in service, foster economic development, and strengthen our communities. We firmly believe that progress is not only measured in tons of cargo moved, but in the opportunities we create. _______________________________________________________________ This year marks a significant milestone: SSA Marine Mexico celebrates 30 years of presence in the country, having established itself from day one as the leading port operator nationwide. Over the past three decades, we have built a legacy of reliability, innovation, and commitment to Mexico’s growth. Our journey has been defined by continuous evolution and a steadfast dedication to our mission. SSA Marine México currently operates in six of the country’s most important ports: Cozumel, Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo, Progreso, Tuxpan, and Veracruz. Additionally, we have signed a concession to operate a new multipurpose terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, expanding our footprint to the north of the country. We serve a wide range of segments including containers, general cargo, automobiles, cruise ships, hydrocarbons, and asphalt. As part of this ongoing commitment, SSA Marine Mexico continues to strengthen its infrastructure and capabilities. International trade remains a key driver of global economic growth, and we are proud to support this momentum. Through our continuous improvement strategy, we invest in cutting-edge technology and equipment to deliver more efficient and competitive services, contributing to the success of Mexican businesses. •	Manzanillo, Colima- Specialized Container Terminal I: On October 13, we celebrated the arrival of two new STS (Ship To Shore) Super Post Panamax dockside cranes. This $21.2 million USD investment significantly boosts our operational capacity, streamlining cargo reception and delivery processes. In line with our modernization efforts, we will also retire four of our oldest cranes, paving the way for a more sustainable and technologically advanced fleet that meets the evolving demands of international trade. With these upgrades, SSA Marine México now operates a total of 16 cranes along our 1,350-meter dock, reaffirming our position as a national benchmark in port <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982635607_Manzanillo.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> •	As for the Multipurpose Terminal and Specialized Facility, also in Manzanillo, Colima, improvement and conditioning works are planned, along with the acquisition of four E-RTG (Electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry) cranes to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. •	At our Automobile and General Cargo Terminal in the port of Veracruz, we continue to lead with specialized value-added services that support our clients’ growth. Recent investments include a new washing cabin and a general cargo warehouse, increasing indoor storage capacity by 67%. •	Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan – Specialized Automobile Terminal: we are working on the development of an additional 4-hectare storage space within our bonded area and a 10-hectare Vehicle Distribution Center (VDC). These enhancements, along with ongoing personnel and system improvements, will reinforce our leadership in automotive handling across the Mexican Pacific coast.<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982742240_Lazaro.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> Through these strategic investments, SSA Marine Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the sustained growth of Mexico’s foreign trade. By expanding capacity, modernizing infrastructure, and diversifying services, we continue to strengthen the country’s competitiveness in global logistics. Today, we celebrate three decades of dedication, innovation, and leadership, with deep gratitude to our employees, clients, and partners for being part of this incredible journey. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1760982787360_SSA%20Marine%20Mexico%20logo%20150pxW.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Manzanillo.jpg

SSA Marine Mexico: 30 years growing together.

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use code FSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use codeFSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Growth in spot refrigerated (reefer) truck pricing is accelerating, especially for loads originating in Florida and Mexico, amid tougher licensing and immigration enforcement. </div>

Growth in spot refrigerated (reefer) truck pricing is accelerating, especially for loads originating in Florida and Mexico, amid tougher licensing and immigration enforcement.

<div class="phx-topic">An emerging supply-demand imbalance in refrigerated (reefer) trucking is pushing more freight to the spot market and increasing upward pressure on short-term rates as the peak trucking season begins. Dual <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/industry-group-calls-for-tougher-licensing-better-training-amid-trucker-crackdown-6101323">crackdowns on immigration and licensing</a> may be tipping a scale already depressed by low demand, trucking and logistics executives told the Journal of Commerce. Average US reefer truckload spot rates, including fuel surcharges, reached $2.47 per mile in the week of Oct. 19, up 10 cents from the week of Sept. 14 and 12 cents from the same week last year, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. Last year, average reefer truckload rates of $2.35 per mile in mid-October were up approximately 1 cent from September 2024 and down 5 cents from October 2023 levels. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d47d3a93-a025-4227-b19e-443d2719ea1e"></dynamic-object></div>Spot reefer rates are rising at a faster pace — and earlier than usual — from produce markets such as South and Central Florida and along the US-Mexico border, said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. Demand may be rising for certain food and grocery shipments ahead of the US Thanksgiving holiday, but tractor and driver supply is shrinking faster. “I suspect what we’re about to see in the refrigerated trucking market is a significant exodus of capacity,” Croke said in an interview Monday. Reefer shipments posted on DAT load boards increased 9% sequentially last week, while trucks posted dropped 6%. “I’m not sure if it’s an exit or a diversion of capacity, or if it’s temporary or permanent, [but] we’re starting to see pockets of capacity tightness,” he added. Those “pockets” do not represent the entire US refrigerated market, however, and they may, or may not, be a precursor of future trends. “Some people will be exuberant and say the market is flipping, but it may be a blip as we head into peak season,” Croke said.Data from Truckstop.com and FTR Transportation Intelligence for the week ending October 24 show a stable spot market that tracked seasonal expectations. Refrigerated spot rates have risen four straight weeks, according to Truckstop.com, but the size of those increases has fallen steadily. ITS Logistics, a Reno, Nevada-based third-party logistics company, has noted a slight drop in truck capacity that it attributes to drivers shunning certain lanes to avoid enforcement. “When you have fewer drivers making those long hauls, it takes capacity out of the market,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain. “It’s like an extended Roadcheck week situation,” he said, referring to the annual truck regulatory enforcement blitz organized by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. The national event typically sees capacity tighten as truck drivers take time off. <h3>Northbound and down </h3>One of the hot spots is Central and South Florida, always a tough market for backhauls because of the imbalance in southbound consumer shipments and northbound freight. Shippers are having a tougher time finding capacity for refrigerated loads from Lakeland, Florida, the largest refrigerated freight market in Florida, Croke said. Spot reefer load posts in Lakeland jumped 28% from the previous week in the week ending Oct. 19. Average outbound spot reefer rates from Lakeland have risen by 10 cents per mile in recent weeks. In the lane linking Lakeland with Atlanta, for example, the average spot rate rose from $1.58 per mile to $1.67 per mile from September through Oct. 28, according to DAT. Shippers are turning to the spot market as their regular trucking providers come up short on capacity, Croke said. He attributes the growing imbalance to licensing and immigration enforcement at truck weight and agricultural stations along Florida highways. Croke sees similar conditions in the McAllen, Texas, refrigerated market, a major border crossing point for produce from Mexico. Spot reefer loads posted in the McAllen area rose 37% sequentially last week and 42% over the past month, according to DAT. Outbound reefer spot rates from McAllen rose 7 cents last week to $2.03 per mile, 14 cents higher than a year ago. The increase was sharper in some long-haul lanes. As of Monday, the average spot reefer rate from McAllen to Fresno, California, shot up from $1.36 per mile in September to $1.71 per mile in the last seven days. Rates from McAllen to Los Angeles jumped from $1.48 per mile in September to $1.87 per mile in the last three days. Fewer drivers from California are making the long-haul to southern Texas, Croke said, which means fewer drivers available to haul loads back to California from McAllen. “Those drivers are reluctant to run to the border for fear of arrest or just fear of delay,” said Croke. A truck inspection lasting hours can throw off a driver’s delivery schedule, sometimes costing an entire leg of a multi-day trip, he said. “Carriers will say they can’t afford to lose that, and they’ll stay home or drive locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An emerging supply-demand imbalance in refrigerated (reefer) trucking is pushing more freight to the spot market and increasing upward pressure on short-term rates as the peak trucking season begins. Dual crackdowns on immigration and licensing may be tipping a scale already depressed by low demand, trucking and logistics executives told the Journal of Commerce. Average US reefer truckload spot rates, including fuel surcharges, reached $2.47 per mile in the week of Oct. 19, up 10 cents from the week of Sept. 14 and 12 cents from the same week last year, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. Last year, average reefer truckload rates of $2.35 per mile in mid-October were up approximately 1 cent from September 2024 and down 5 cents from October 2023 levels. Spot reefer rates are rising at a faster pace — and earlier than usual — from produce markets such as South and Central Florida and along the US-Mexico border, said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. Demand may be rising for certain food and grocery shipments ahead of the US Thanksgiving holiday, but tractor and driver supply is shrinking faster. “I suspect what we’re about to see in the refrigerated trucking market is a significant exodus of capacity,” Croke said in an interview Monday. Reefer shipments posted on DAT load boards increased 9% sequentially last week, while trucks posted dropped 6%. “I’m not sure if it’s an exit or a diversion of capacity, or if it’s temporary or permanent, [but] we’re starting to see pockets of capacity tightness,” he added. Those “pockets” do not represent the entire US refrigerated market, however, and they may, or may not, be a precursor of future trends. “Some people will be exuberant and say the market is flipping, but it may be a blip as we head into peak season,” Croke said. Data from Truckstop.com and FTR Transportation Intelligence for the week ending October 24 show a stable spot market that tracked seasonal expectations. Refrigerated spot rates have risen four straight weeks, according to Truckstop.com, but the size of those increases has fallen steadily. ITS Logistics, a Reno, Nevada-based third-party logistics company, has noted a slight drop in truck capacity that it attributes to drivers shunning certain lanes to avoid enforcement. “When you have fewer drivers making those long hauls, it takes capacity out of the market,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain. “It’s like an extended Roadcheck week situation,” he said, referring to the annual truck regulatory enforcement blitz organized by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. The national event typically sees capacity tighten as truck drivers take time off. Northbound and down One of the hot spots is Central and South Florida, always a tough market for backhauls because of the imbalance in southbound consumer shipments and northbound freight. Shippers are having a tougher time finding capacity for refrigerated loads from Lakeland, Florida, the largest refrigerated freight market in Florida, Croke said. Spot reefer load posts in Lakeland jumped 28% from the previous week in the week ending Oct. 19. Average outbound spot reefer rates from Lakeland have risen by 10 cents per mile in recent weeks. In the lane linking Lakeland with Atlanta, for example, the average spot rate rose from $1.58 per mile to $1.67 per mile from September through Oct. 28, according to DAT. Shippers are turning to the spot market as their regular trucking providers come up short on capacity, Croke said. He attributes the growing imbalance to licensing and immigration enforcement at truck weight and agricultural stations along Florida highways. Croke sees similar conditions in the McAllen, Texas, refrigerated market, a major border crossing point for produce from Mexico. Spot reefer loads posted in the McAllen area rose 37% sequentially last week and 42% over the past month, according to DAT. Outbound reefer spot rates from McAllen rose 7 cents last week to $2.03 per mile, 14 cents higher than a year ago. The increase was sharper in some long-haul lanes. As of Monday, the average spot reefer rate from McAllen to Fresno, California, shot up from $1.36 per mile in September to $1.71 per mile in the last seven days. Rates from McAllen to Los Angeles jumped from $1.48 per mile in September to $1.87 per mile in the last three days. Fewer drivers from California are making the long-haul to southern Texas, Croke said, which means fewer drivers available to haul loads back to California from McAllen. “Those drivers are reluctant to run to the border for fear of arrest or just fear of delay,” said Croke. A truck inspection lasting hours can throw off a driver’s delivery schedule, sometimes costing an entire leg of a multi-day trip, he said. “Carriers will say they can’t afford to lose that, and they’ll stay home or drive locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Shrinking capacity pushing up US reefer truck rates

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks. </div>

The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carrier heavyweights are increasingly betting on India as an alternative maritime hub as they face ongoing supply chain challenges linked to geopolitical tensions. Maersk has now diversified its business interests in India by reflagging two of its short-haul container ships to the local registry — the 1,810-TEU Maersk Vilnius and the 1,740-TEU Maersk Vigo, both built in 2010. They were previously registered in Singapore. “India is a critical growth market for Maersk, driven by robust economic fundamentals, expanding container trade and significant policy reforms in the maritime sector,” a company spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of our continued commitment to strengthening our presence in India, we have registered two of our vessels under the Indian flag.” The Maersk spokesperson also said the carrier will continue to use the flags of Denmark, Singapore and Hong Kong for its fleets. The two reflagged vessels are said to be part of Maersk’s regional networks covering Asian trades. That reflagging move builds on a shipbuilding/repair partnership program Maersk set up with India’s Cochin Shipyard in early 2025. French liner CMA CGM has already reflagged four box ships to the Indian registry and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-signs-350-million-indian-shipbuilding-order-for-six-box-ships-6097779">signed a firm shipbuilding contract with Cochin Shipyard</a> for six feeder vessels to be delivered between 2029 and 2031. <h3>Government woos carriers </h3>The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks. “India’s renewed focus on shipbuilding/recycling, which is encouraging to note, is prompting the container lines to consider building and/or registering ships in India,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. “India’s emergence as an alternative marketplace is indeed a welcome step for the industry.” That diversification, while being portrayed as a new strategic approach, signals other regulatory pressures, industry sources believe. <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Findia-regulators-seek-vsa-trade-off-for-local-carriers-and-alliances-5742524&amp;data=05%7C02%7Civan.klos%40spglobal.com%7C5df43bbc6f5c44a193b008de162d46ca%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638972580902059458%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=mIynqQGNqtwhesUdqzkayedKpyrUCclY6QLpr7jL8ZY%3D&amp;reserved=0">India’s competition authority recently noted</a> that any further immunity from antitrust laws for vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs) would be subject to carrier groupings allocating 5% of the total declared space to both Indian-flagged vessels and local non-vessel-operating common carrier. “It’s apparent that the inducements alone, though significant, would not have brought foreign fleet owners flocking to register their ships in India,” said a Mumbai-based industry observer who did not want to be identified. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carrier heavyweights are increasingly betting on India as an alternative maritime hub as they face ongoing supply chain challenges linked to geopolitical tensions. Maersk has now diversified its business interests in India by reflagging two of its short-haul container ships to the local registry — the 1,810-TEU Maersk Vilnius and the 1,740-TEU Maersk Vigo, both built in 2010. They were previously registered in Singapore. “India is a critical growth market for Maersk, driven by robust economic fundamentals, expanding container trade and significant policy reforms in the maritime sector,” a company spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of our continued commitment to strengthening our presence in India, we have registered two of our vessels under the Indian flag.” The Maersk spokesperson also said the carrier will continue to use the flags of Denmark, Singapore and Hong Kong for its fleets. The two reflagged vessels are said to be part of Maersk’s regional networks covering Asian trades. That reflagging move builds on a shipbuilding/repair partnership program Maersk set up with India’s Cochin Shipyard in early 2025. French liner CMA CGM has already reflagged four box ships to the Indian registry and signed a firm shipbuilding contract with Cochin Shipyard for six feeder vessels to be delivered between 2029 and 2031. Government woos carriers The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks. “India’s renewed focus on shipbuilding/recycling, which is encouraging to note, is prompting the container lines to consider building and/or registering ships in India,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. “India’s emergence as an alternative marketplace is indeed a welcome step for the industry.” That diversification, while being portrayed as a new strategic approach, signals other regulatory pressures, industry sources believe. India’s competition authority recently noted that any further immunity from antitrust laws for vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs) would be subject to carrier groupings allocating 5% of the total declared space to both Indian-flagged vessels and local non-vessel-operating common carrier. “It’s apparent that the inducements alone, though significant, would not have brought foreign fleet owners flocking to register their ships in India,” said a Mumbai-based industry observer who did not want to be identified. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Maersk joins CMA CGM in reflagging container ships in India amid antitrust pressure

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on the two carriers, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the fee structure.</div>

The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on the two carriers, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the fee structure.

<div class="phx-topic">New US port fees targeting China’s maritime industry cost Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary just over $42 million in the first week the fees were in place, according to vessel-tracking data detailing their US calls. Outside of those two carriers, the fees have largely on three Chinese-built container ships, with those costs likely totaling a few million dollars. The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on Cosco and OOCL, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the US fee structure. Vessel tracking data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows that eight Cosco-operated container ships and seven operated by OOCL made a US port call in Oct. 14–20. Oct. 14 was the first day that ocean carriers would be subject to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) penalties targeting China’s maritime industry</a>. The fees, which were the result of a USTR investigation started in 2024 and concluded earlier this year, are $50 per net ton for the first US port call of a Chinese-operated ship in the first year of implementation, with the levy escalating annually through 2028. Chinese-built ships operated by other carriers face the higher of either $18 per ton or $120 per container discharged. The 15 ships operated by Cosco and OOCL during the first week of the fees, most of which are post-Panamax size, had net tonnage of 855,718, Sea-web data shows. Based on the USTR fee schedule, that would equate to $42.8 million in fees for the ships on their initial port call. The size of each fee paid varied widely. The 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Jasmine, which called Savannah on Oct. 14, would have incurred a $4.2 million fee based on its net tonnage. The 4,253-TEU Felixstowe, also operated by Cosco, faced a $1.2 million fee due to its smaller size. Nine of the Cosco and OOCL ships were built in South Korea, while four were built in China and one in Japan. At the first week’s run rate, Cosco and OOCL could incur $2.2 billion in US port fees during the first year. That aligns with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-exceed-2b-for-cosco-oocl-hsbc-6077305">September estimate from investment bank HSBC</a>, which said the fees represent between 5% to 7% of the two carriers’ annual combined revenue. Cosco and the USTR did not respond to requests for comment. Cosco, which is the majority owner of OOCL, decried the USTR fees as a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-slams-us-port-fees-as-other-carriers-reckon-with-potential-costs-5989606">“discriminatory decision”</a> when they were first unveiled in April. However, one month ahead of the Oct. 14 start date, Cosco said it remained committed to the US market, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-says-no-changes-to-us-services-as-new-port-fees-approach-6082151">no plans to charge shippers for the fee</a>. HSBC estimated the US port fee would translate to a cost for Chinese carriers of about $600 per container, while an April report from consultancy BluSpark said the fee could be $550 per container. Assuming the 15 ships that called in Oct. 14–20 were at fully loaded capacity, the fee translates to about $657 per container. <h3>Zim also faces fees </h3>Out of 160 container ships over 4,000-TEU that called the US between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20, only three not operated by Cosco or OOCL were built in China and likely subject to the fees, according to Sea-web, showing the extent to which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tonnage-moving-out-of-us-container-trade-ahead-of-new-fees-xeneta-6081320">other ocean carriers redeployed Chinese tonnage to avoid the fees</a>. The figure does not include two Chinese-built ships operated by CMA CGM’s US-flag subsidiary APL because <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinas-port-fees-forcing-gemini-to-shift-out-us-flag-ships-6097952">the USTR has exempted those ships</a>. It also does not include container/roll-on/roll-off vessels such as those operated by Atlantic Container Line, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/acl-weighs-options-after-facing-annual-35-million-ustr-port-bill-6102368">itself facing $1.4 million in costs for each port call due to the USTR’s designation of the carrier’s vessels</a>. Zim operated all three of the Chinese-built ships calling the US, all between 5,315 and 7,000 TEU in nominal capacity. Based on the net tonnage of the three ships, Zim likely incurred fees between $450,000 and $700,000 for the first US call. While it’s unclear how many containers the ships discharged, the cost would translate to approximately $270 per loaded container. A week prior to the fees going into effect, Zim said in a customer advisory that it would not charge shippers for the fees, but it “reserves the right to reassess this position should additional cost implications or regulation evolve.” Zim did not return a request for comment. Zim operated a fourth Chinese-built ship, the 4,249-TEU Spyros V, but it’s below the 55,000 deadweight tons threshold for the USTR fees. Similarly, the China-built, 4,250-TEU Vancouver Star, operated by Hapag-Lloyd, is also below the size threshold. This article has been updated to reflect that the Spyros V and Vancouver Star are not subject to the USTR’s port fees due to their size. The SM Tianjin, is also not subject to the fees because it is operated by South Korea’s SM Lines, not China United Lines.Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a></div>

New US port fees targeting China’s maritime industry cost Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary just over $42 million in the first week the fees were in place, according to vessel-tracking data detailing their US calls. Outside of those two carriers, the fees have largely on three Chinese-built container ships, with those costs likely totaling a few million dollars. The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on Cosco and OOCL, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the US fee structure. Vessel tracking data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows that eight Cosco-operated container ships and seven operated by OOCL made a US port call in Oct. 14–20. Oct. 14 was the first day that ocean carriers would be subject to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) penalties targeting China’s maritime industry . The fees, which were the result of a USTR investigation started in 2024 and concluded earlier this year, are $50 per net ton for the first US port call of a Chinese-operated ship in the first year of implementation, with the levy escalating annually through 2028. Chinese-built ships operated by other carriers face the higher of either $18 per ton or $120 per container discharged. The 15 ships operated by Cosco and OOCL during the first week of the fees, most of which are post-Panamax size, had net tonnage of 855,718, Sea-web data shows. Based on the USTR fee schedule, that would equate to $42.8 million in fees for the ships on their initial port call. The size of each fee paid varied widely. The 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Jasmine, which called Savannah on Oct. 14, would have incurred a $4.2 million fee based on its net tonnage. The 4,253-TEU Felixstowe, also operated by Cosco, faced a $1.2 million fee due to its smaller size. Nine of the Cosco and OOCL ships were built in South Korea, while four were built in China and one in Japan. At the first week’s run rate, Cosco and OOCL could incur $2.2 billion in US port fees during the first year. That aligns with a September estimate from investment bank HSBC , which said the fees represent between 5% to 7% of the two carriers’ annual combined revenue. Cosco and the USTR did not respond to requests for comment. Cosco, which is the majority owner of OOCL, decried the USTR fees as a “discriminatory decision” when they were first unveiled in April. However, one month ahead of the Oct. 14 start date, Cosco said it remained committed to the US market, with no plans to charge shippers for the fee . HSBC estimated the US port fee would translate to a cost for Chinese carriers of about $600 per container, while an April report from consultancy BluSpark said the fee could be $550 per container. Assuming the 15 ships that called in Oct. 14–20 were at fully loaded capacity, the fee translates to about $657 per container. Zim also faces fees Out of 160 container ships over 4,000-TEU that called the US between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20, only three not operated by Cosco or OOCL were built in China and likely subject to the fees, according to Sea-web, showing the extent to which other ocean carriers redeployed Chinese tonnage to avoid the fees . The figure does not include two Chinese-built ships operated by CMA CGM’s US-flag subsidiary APL because the USTR has exempted those ships . It also does not include container/roll-on/roll-off vessels such as those operated by Atlantic Container Line, itself facing $1.4 million in costs for each port call due to the USTR’s designation of the carrier’s vessels . Zim operated all three of the Chinese-built ships calling the US, all between 5,315 and 7,000 TEU in nominal capacity. Based on the net tonnage of the three ships, Zim likely incurred fees between $450,000 and $700,000 for the first US call. While it’s unclear how many containers the ships discharged, the cost would translate to approximately $270 per loaded container. A week prior to the fees going into effect, Zim said in a customer advisory that it would not charge shippers for the fees, but it “reserves the right to reassess this position should additional cost implications or regulation evolve.” Zim did not return a request for comment. Zim operated a fourth Chinese-built ship, the 4,249-TEU Spyros V, but it’s below the 55,000 deadweight tons threshold for the USTR fees. Similarly, the China-built, 4,250-TEU Vancouver Star, operated by Hapag-Lloyd, is also below the size threshold. This article has been updated to reflect that the Spyros V and Vancouver Star are not subject to the USTR’s port fees due to their size. The SM Tianjin, is also not subject to the fees because it is operated by South Korea’s SM Lines, not China United Lines. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

Trade deal could boost short-term China imports, but uncertainty lingers

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

J.B. Hunt’s East Coast strategy is shifting as rail alliances realign

Redecking project on Los Angeles harbor bridge to begin in early 2026

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

Recent Commentary

UP-NS merger could mean new dominant voice inside rail industry cooperative

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Top 5 Most Read Stories