<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Sarah McCoy, who recently led the renegotiation of the lease for the Virginia International Gateway terminal, will lead the sixth-largest port in the US by volume. </div>

Sarah McCoy, who recently led the renegotiation of the lease for the Virginia International Gateway terminal, will lead the sixth-largest port in the US by volume.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">A 12-year veteran of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) who led the renegotiation of the lease at one of the most advanced marine terminals in the country, has officially taken the reins of the sixth-largest US container port by volume. Sarah McCoy on Wednesday was named CEO of the Port of Virginia after serving as interim CEO and executive director since January. She replaces Stephen Edwards, who stepped down last November. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6215876_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“We have the infrastructure, people and performance to continue defining the future of American trade, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” McCoy said in a statement. “I look forward to putting these advantages to work to attract business to Virginia and continue delivering for our customers and communities across Virginia.” McCoy led VPA’s renegotiation of its lease for the Virginia International Gateway through 2065 with owner Alinda Capital Partners. She was also key in the port’s recent $1.4 billion investment plan that included the late February <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/virginias-deeper-harbor-could-allow-higher-usage-on-ulcvs-6189706">completion of the deepening of Norfolk’s harbor to 55 feet</a>. McCoy was VPA’s general counsel from 2017 to 2022 and then served as chief administrative officer. Laden container volumes through the port in 2025 fell 4.2% year over year, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Comparatively, volume through the US East Coast overall increased 3.2%. <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">News@joc.com</a></div>

A 12-year veteran of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) who led the renegotiation of the lease at one of the most advanced marine terminals in the country, has officially taken the reins of the sixth-largest US container port by volume. Sarah McCoy on Wednesday was named CEO of the Port of Virginia after serving as interim CEO and executive director since January. She replaces Stephen Edwards, who stepped down last November. “We have the infrastructure, people and performance to continue defining the future of American trade, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” McCoy said in a statement. “I look forward to putting these advantages to work to attract business to Virginia and continue delivering for our customers and communities across Virginia.” McCoy led VPA’s renegotiation of its lease for the Virginia International Gateway through 2065 with owner Alinda Capital Partners. She was also key in the port’s recent $1.4 billion investment plan that included the late February completion of the deepening of Norfolk’s harbor to 55 feet . McCoy was VPA’s general counsel from 2017 to 2022 and then served as chief administrative officer. Laden container volumes through the port in 2025 fell 4.2% year over year, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Comparatively, volume through the US East Coast overall increased 3.2%. News@joc.com

Port News

North American ports

Marine terminals

Maritime

VPA veteran McCoy tapped as CEO of Port of Virginia

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Local 23 says marine clerk jobs will be eliminated if Husky Terminal uses container-tracking technology within the terminal yard, despite the fact that its use has been widespread at West Coast terminals for decades without jobs being lost. </div>

Local 23 says marine clerk jobs will be eliminated if Husky Terminal uses container-tracking technology within the terminal yard, despite the fact that its use has been widespread at West Coast terminals for decades without jobs being lost.

<div class="phx-topic">A local of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in Tacoma is attempting to block Husky Terminal from installing container-tracking technology on its gantry cranes, saying the move would eliminate union jobs. The complaint from ILWU Local 23 comes despite the fact that the technology has been in widespread use at marine terminals along the West Coast since it was written into a coastwide contract approved in 2002. At issue is the use of what’s known as optical character recognition, or OCRs, which record container numbers as the boxes are lifted off vessels. The numbers are paired with information relayed by radio frequency identification devices (RFDs) that track container movements in the yard. Before computerization, that information was manually inputted by ILWU marine clerks. The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents terminal operators in negotiating and managing the coastwide collective bargaining agreements, says the use of OCRs and RFDs has significantly enhanced the efficiency of port operations. “West Coast ports have lost substantial market share to competing ports in Canada and on the Gulf and East coasts,” the PMA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Failing to keep pace with modern cargo-handling practices not only drives cargo and market share to competing ports, but also puts longshore jobs — as well as jobs throughout the supply chain — at risk.” ILWU Local 23 has been seeking signatures on a petition that claims union jobs at Husky are at risk over the OCR technology. “ILWU Local 23 is raising community awareness that the Port of Tacoma is considering allowing its tenant, Husky Terminal, to install technology on publicly owned port gantry cranes that will eliminate jobs for longshore marine clerks,” Local 23 President Jared Faker said in a statement. <h3>Number of marine clerks at Tacoma has increased </h3>The PMA said the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ilwu-braces-for-technology-5264642">2002 ILWU-PMA contract</a> that was ratified by the union specifically allows the use of computerization in return for management concessions that protect the interests of marine clerks. “Those contract provisions also provide ILWU clerks and other ILWU members with a wide range of job protections, including guaranteed pay,” the PMA said. The number of registered marine clerks in Tacoma has actually increased from 90 in the summer of 2002 to 133 as of December 2025, a gain of 48%, according to the PMA. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

A local of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in Tacoma is attempting to block Husky Terminal from installing container-tracking technology on its gantry cranes, saying the move would eliminate union jobs. The complaint from ILWU Local 23 comes despite the fact that the technology has been in widespread use at marine terminals along the West Coast since it was written into a coastwide contract approved in 2002. At issue is the use of what’s known as optical character recognition, or OCRs, which record container numbers as the boxes are lifted off vessels. The numbers are paired with information relayed by radio frequency identification devices (RFDs) that track container movements in the yard. Before computerization, that information was manually inputted by ILWU marine clerks. The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents terminal operators in negotiating and managing the coastwide collective bargaining agreements, says the use of OCRs and RFDs has significantly enhanced the efficiency of port operations. “West Coast ports have lost substantial market share to competing ports in Canada and on the Gulf and East coasts,” the PMA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Failing to keep pace with modern cargo-handling practices not only drives cargo and market share to competing ports, but also puts longshore jobs — as well as jobs throughout the supply chain — at risk.” ILWU Local 23 has been seeking signatures on a petition that claims union jobs at Husky are at risk over the OCR technology. “ILWU Local 23 is raising community awareness that the Port of Tacoma is considering allowing its tenant, Husky Terminal, to install technology on publicly owned port gantry cranes that will eliminate jobs for longshore marine clerks,” Local 23 President Jared Faker said in a statement. Number of marine clerks at Tacoma has increased The PMA said the 2002 ILWU-PMA contract that was ratified by the union specifically allows the use of computerization in return for management concessions that protect the interests of marine clerks. “Those contract provisions also provide ILWU clerks and other ILWU members with a wide range of job protections, including guaranteed pay,” the PMA said. The number of registered marine clerks in Tacoma has actually increased from 90 in the summer of 2002 to 133 as of December 2025, a gain of 48%, according to the PMA. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Tacoma ILWU local attempting to block Husky technology effort

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The crackdown on more than 150 onshore wind farms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry. </div>

The crackdown on more than 150 onshore wind farms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry.

<div class="phx-topic">Wind project cargo activity is facing yet another setback after over 150 onshore wind developments in the US were put on hold by the Trump administration. Citing national security concerns, the Department of Defense <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/04/climate/wind-power-delays-trump-pentagon.html">has stalled approvals for about 165 onshore wind projects</a> located on private lands, the administration’s latest push against wind energy development. The inactivity could have repercussions for the breakbulk sector, as the wind industry represents an important source of project cargo. The lion’s share of those shipments is for the onshore wind industry, which accounted for more than 90% of global wind turbine orders in 2025 despite an 18% year-over-year decline, according to data from S&amp;P Global Energy. John Welch, senior director of heavy-haul operations for Fort Worth, Texas-based Lone Star Transportation, told the Journal of Commerce that cargo transportation for the wind industry depends on a predictable project pipeline, as the moves often call for complex logistics work. “Transporting the major wind components requires significant advance planning, specialized equipment, routing, permitting, escorts, crews, and considerable coordination,” he said. “And that is just the transportation portion.” Welch said national security reviews are important, and that any legitimate concerns should be addressed through the appropriate process. However, “At the same time, delays or uncertainty in project approvals can ripple through the logistics and supply chain, making it more difficult for transportation providers and their customers to plan efficiently and responsibly,” he said. Among the stalled projects are wind farms that were awaiting final signoff, others in mid-negotiation, and projects that typically do not require federal oversight, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/74d8cf6f-aa17-4a24-a621-e26b1bad2e1e?syn-25a6b1a6=1">the Financial Times reported</a>, citing the American Clean Power Association (ACP) and sources close to the matter. Jason Grumet, ACP’s CEO, told the Journal of Commerce that efforts to delay onshore projects contradict calls from senior federal officials for permitting reform while “abusing the current permitting system.”  “The core idea of permitting reform is that America wins when we can modernize all critical infrastructure,” Grumet said. “It’s incoherent to pursue that goal while actively blockading domestic energy production that will help meet our growing energy needs and keeping energy affordable for American families.” <h3>Wind supply chain recalibrates </h3>The crackdown on onshore windfarms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry. On March 23, French energy giant TotalEnergies signed off on a deal to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/offshore-wind-cancellations-set-up-energy-project-pivot-in-the-us-6192787">accept $1 billion from the US government to cancel its two offshore wind projects</a> — Carolina Long Bay and New York Bight — and instead pivot to developing fossil fuel facilities. And in February, the Trump administration began taking steps to reverse a sweep of court victories allowing construction to resume on five offshore wind projects the administration has tried to stop. The slowdown of US wind farm development over the past couple of years has forced heavy-haul transport specialist Art Espaillat to suspend operations of his onshore wind logistics consultancy, as many of his competitors lowered their rates when project developers pulled back. “It just created a race to the bottom for a lot of companies like mine,” Espaillat told the Journal of Commerce. Espaillat said many of the US wind projects he has worked on over the past six years had already secured agreements with utilities to supply power to the grid, only to reach a standstill because of federal permitting delays. “They’re setting up roadblocks that not a lot of other industries are getting,” he said. With fewer turbines in need of transport, comparably sized data center components have been eating up the available heavy-haul capacity, Espaillat said. But if those stalled wind projects were to pick back up again in another two years, the industry could face a scenario similar to the challenges that played out in 2020 when the global wind industry’s rapid expansion created supply chain bottlenecks for turbines and components. “Developers lost a lot of money because there weren’t enough trucks, not enough ships, and it was too much too fast,” Espaillat said. “Executing in a scenario like that is very expensive and chaotic.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

Wind project cargo activity is facing yet another setback after over 150 onshore wind developments in the US were put on hold by the Trump administration. Citing national security concerns, the Department of Defense has stalled approvals for about 165 onshore wind projects located on private lands, the administration’s latest push against wind energy development. The inactivity could have repercussions for the breakbulk sector, as the wind industry represents an important source of project cargo. The lion’s share of those shipments is for the onshore wind industry, which accounted for more than 90% of global wind turbine orders in 2025 despite an 18% year-over-year decline, according to data from S&P Global Energy. John Welch, senior director of heavy-haul operations for Fort Worth, Texas-based Lone Star Transportation, told the Journal of Commerce that cargo transportation for the wind industry depends on a predictable project pipeline, as the moves often call for complex logistics work. “Transporting the major wind components requires significant advance planning, specialized equipment, routing, permitting, escorts, crews, and considerable coordination,” he said. “And that is just the transportation portion.” Welch said national security reviews are important, and that any legitimate concerns should be addressed through the appropriate process. However, “At the same time, delays or uncertainty in project approvals can ripple through the logistics and supply chain, making it more difficult for transportation providers and their customers to plan efficiently and responsibly,” he said. Among the stalled projects are wind farms that were awaiting final signoff, others in mid-negotiation, and projects that typically do not require federal oversight, the Financial Times reported , citing the American Clean Power Association (ACP) and sources close to the matter. Jason Grumet, ACP’s CEO, told the Journal of Commerce that efforts to delay onshore projects contradict calls from senior federal officials for permitting reform while “abusing the current permitting system.”  “The core idea of permitting reform is that America wins when we can modernize all critical infrastructure,” Grumet said. “It’s incoherent to pursue that goal while actively blockading domestic energy production that will help meet our growing energy needs and keeping energy affordable for American families.” Wind supply chain recalibrates The crackdown on onshore windfarms marks the latest push by the Trump administration to dismantle the US wind industry. On March 23, French energy giant TotalEnergies signed off on a deal to accept $1 billion from the US government to cancel its two offshore wind projects — Carolina Long Bay and New York Bight — and instead pivot to developing fossil fuel facilities. And in February, the Trump administration began taking steps to reverse a sweep of court victories allowing construction to resume on five offshore wind projects the administration has tried to stop. The slowdown of US wind farm development over the past couple of years has forced heavy-haul transport specialist Art Espaillat to suspend operations of his onshore wind logistics consultancy, as many of his competitors lowered their rates when project developers pulled back. “It just created a race to the bottom for a lot of companies like mine,” Espaillat told the Journal of Commerce. Espaillat said many of the US wind projects he has worked on over the past six years had already secured agreements with utilities to supply power to the grid, only to reach a standstill because of federal permitting delays. “They’re setting up roadblocks that not a lot of other industries are getting,” he said. With fewer turbines in need of transport, comparably sized data center components have been eating up the available heavy-haul capacity, Espaillat said. But if those stalled wind projects were to pick back up again in another two years, the industry could face a scenario similar to the challenges that played out in 2020 when the global wind industry’s rapid expansion created supply chain bottlenecks for turbines and components. “Developers lost a lot of money because there weren’t enough trucks, not enough ships, and it was too much too fast,” Espaillat said. “Executing in a scenario like that is very expensive and chaotic.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Energy projects

Breakbulk News

US onshore wind halt deals latest blow for project cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Logistics and transportation veterans decried Amazon’s announcement this week that it is offering bundled supply chain services as merely a repackaging of current capabilities; others weren’t as quick to dismiss it. </div>

Logistics and transportation veterans decried Amazon’s announcement this week that it is offering bundled supply chain services as merely a repackaging of current capabilities; others weren’t as quick to dismiss it.

<div class="phx-topic">Amazon’s launch this week of a suite of supply chain services for shippers not currently using its e-commerce seller ecosystem has sparked a healthy debate within the logistics industry about whether the services represent a threat to third-party logistics providers (3PLs). On one side of that debate are mostly transportation and logistics veterans who suggest the announcement is primarily marketing — a neat and more digestible packaging of offerings that Amazon has long provided as individual services, such as warehousing, fulfillment, and brokered and for-hire transportation. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6215654_0.1.jpg"></img></div>On the other side are those who think Amazon’s foray into diversified logistics is taking shape in a way that threatens everyone from integrators such as UPS and FedEx to mom-and-pop forwarders and freight brokers to supply chain software vendors. “I’m laughing at all the ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ over something that is essentially just a marketing ploy,” Eric Williams, CEO of freight brokerage pricing vendor Beagl and a former transportation executive with Target, wrote on X. In a response to a question posted on X about whether Amazon had just “knee-capped” the forwarder Flexport, its CEO Ryan Petersen replied: “No, they’ve had this offering for many years.” One longtime logistics veteran who did not want to be identified described the announcement to the Journal of Commerce as “Groundhog Day,” given that it felt familiar. <h3>‘Execution engine’ </h3>Still, there are certainly watchers of the supply chain space who assert that Amazon’s move is more than just a repackaging of existing capabilities. “Amazon has built a fully integrated execution engine,” Brittain Ladd, a former Amazon executive and prolific analyst of the retail, supply chain and technology space, said in a LinkedIn post. “Not a platform. Not software. An integrated execution engine that also includes robotics and automation.” Ladd said sources within Amazon believe the company will be able to save third-party shippers a sizable percentage over what they might be paying now by using current combinations of transportation, contract logistics, final mile, and software partners. “I don’t care how long a 3PL has done business with a customer,” he said. “When customers learn that Amazon can reduce their costs ... and transition their logistics needs into Amazon’s ecosystem with minimal disruption, they will choose Amazon.” Or will they? This type of offering has been tried by large retailers before. Walmart in the late 2000s toyed with the idea of offering third-party contract logistics services to other shippers, but the idea never gained enough traction to grow into a substantial business unit. More recently, American Eagle Outfitters cut bait on a third-party logistics venture designed to attract other shippers. It’s hard to pinpoint how and why these ventures didn’t succeed, but some part of it is attributable to the reticence of shippers to use competitors as logistics partners. <h3>Competitor tension </h3>Amazon is a different beast than American Eagle and even Walmart, but some of that competitive tension will surely remain. Although Amazon noted in its announcement that retail customers such as Lands’ End and, ironically, American Eagle, are existing users of its supply chain services, it’s hard to imagine retailers that compete directly with Amazon’s e-commerce business engaging in a massive migration to its logistics offering. Some commenters made the link between the announcement Monday of Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) and the wildly successful Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure business. Surely, the branding team at Amazon would love for ACSC to become as synonymous with logistics as AWS has become with cloud. In business circles, the much-loved trope is that Amazon takes its biggest cost centers and eventually turns them into revenue drivers. But is logistics like other parts of its business? Amazon has long blended the digital and physical worlds, but the fragmentation of freight transportation across modes is much more challenging than what it has faced in parcel or web hosting or even warehousing and fulfillment. Take, for example, Amazon’s non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) business. That unit is big enough to be the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/journal-of-commerce-top-25-trans-pacific-nvos-in-2025-6182176">seventh-largest trans-Pacific NVO</a>, according to data from S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, but it is not in any way dominant. <h3>Domestic focus </h3>What’s more, the announcement Monday suggests Amazon’s focus is largely on domestic services — brokerage, drayage, warehousing, final-mile, inventory management, and distribution. Within each of those categories, Amazon will contend with a set of competitors that range from large, diversified, and often well-capitalized players, to the normal cohort of smaller providers. Given the highly fragmented nature of logistics on the whole, and even within each subcategory, this will be a test of whether Amazon’s technological might and huge scale will overpower businesses that focus on people-to-people relationships first and foremost. The not-so-small matter of which shippers might be reluctant to turn over the keys to their supply chains to a company that has become famously dominant in e-commerce, fulfillment and web services overlaps with the fragmentation issue. Competitors in each service category will also be split into ones that cater to many shipper verticals and ones that focus on single verticals. In the announcement, Amazon specifically mentioned automotive, healthcare, electronics, apparel &amp; beauty, and food &amp; beverage, as key verticals it would target. Some of those verticals can be neatly split into manufacturer and retailer segments. Are retailers ready to give Amazon intricate information on their supplier networks or customs information? Or will Amazon find more joy in targeting upstream suppliers within the retail industry, or larger shippers in the industrial sector? <h3>‘Base load’ benefits </h3>Aside from just generating more revenue from its decade of investment in third-party logistics, the benefit to Amazon bundling its services is clear: By providing what one LinkedIn commenter called a “base load“ of third-party cargo across various modes, Amazon could essentially subsidize or even zero out the cost of moving its own freight. That “own” freight could take the form of volume from third-party sellers already on Amazon’s e-commerce platform or its own products that Amazon moves as an outright shipper itself. That’s a target worth chasing for a company with the scale and reach of Amazon. And it would give them yet another lever to distance themselves from competition across the various categories in which it participates. That even includes AWS, where it is competing with Google and Microsoft to collect monetizable logistics industry information. Still... “This is not like AWS,” Dave Ross, chief strategy officer of less-than-truckload carrier Roadrunner and a former equities analyst, wrote on LinkedIn. “There is no ‘move to the cloud’ when it comes to freight. Amazon is adding no new capacity. [It] just wants to be a middleman to replace your current middleman. I’ll take the ‘under’ on its overall impact to the transportation &amp; logistics industry after hype and headlines pass.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Amazon’s launch this week of a suite of supply chain services for shippers not currently using its e-commerce seller ecosystem has sparked a healthy debate within the logistics industry about whether the services represent a threat to third-party logistics providers (3PLs). On one side of that debate are mostly transportation and logistics veterans who suggest the announcement is primarily marketing — a neat and more digestible packaging of offerings that Amazon has long provided as individual services, such as warehousing, fulfillment, and brokered and for-hire transportation. On the other side are those who think Amazon’s foray into diversified logistics is taking shape in a way that threatens everyone from integrators such as UPS and FedEx to mom-and-pop forwarders and freight brokers to supply chain software vendors. “I’m laughing at all the ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ over something that is essentially just a marketing ploy,” Eric Williams, CEO of freight brokerage pricing vendor Beagl and a former transportation executive with Target, wrote on X. In a response to a question posted on X about whether Amazon had just “knee-capped” the forwarder Flexport, its CEO Ryan Petersen replied: “No, they’ve had this offering for many years.” One longtime logistics veteran who did not want to be identified described the announcement to the Journal of Commerce as “Groundhog Day,” given that it felt familiar. ‘Execution engine’ Still, there are certainly watchers of the supply chain space who assert that Amazon’s move is more than just a repackaging of existing capabilities. “Amazon has built a fully integrated execution engine,” Brittain Ladd, a former Amazon executive and prolific analyst of the retail, supply chain and technology space, said in a LinkedIn post. “Not a platform. Not software. An integrated execution engine that also includes robotics and automation.” Ladd said sources within Amazon believe the company will be able to save third-party shippers a sizable percentage over what they might be paying now by using current combinations of transportation, contract logistics, final mile, and software partners. “I don’t care how long a 3PL has done business with a customer,” he said. “When customers learn that Amazon can reduce their costs ... and transition their logistics needs into Amazon’s ecosystem with minimal disruption, they will choose Amazon.” Or will they? This type of offering has been tried by large retailers before. Walmart in the late 2000s toyed with the idea of offering third-party contract logistics services to other shippers, but the idea never gained enough traction to grow into a substantial business unit. More recently, American Eagle Outfitters cut bait on a third-party logistics venture designed to attract other shippers. It’s hard to pinpoint how and why these ventures didn’t succeed, but some part of it is attributable to the reticence of shippers to use competitors as logistics partners. Competitor tension Amazon is a different beast than American Eagle and even Walmart, but some of that competitive tension will surely remain. Although Amazon noted in its announcement that retail customers such as Lands’ End and, ironically, American Eagle, are existing users of its supply chain services, it’s hard to imagine retailers that compete directly with Amazon’s e-commerce business engaging in a massive migration to its logistics offering. Some commenters made the link between the announcement Monday of Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) and the wildly successful Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure business. Surely, the branding team at Amazon would love for ACSC to become as synonymous with logistics as AWS has become with cloud. In business circles, the much-loved trope is that Amazon takes its biggest cost centers and eventually turns them into revenue drivers. But is logistics like other parts of its business? Amazon has long blended the digital and physical worlds, but the fragmentation of freight transportation across modes is much more challenging than what it has faced in parcel or web hosting or even warehousing and fulfillment. Take, for example, Amazon’s non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) business. That unit is big enough to be the seventh-largest trans-Pacific NVO , according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, but it is not in any way dominant. Domestic focus What’s more, the announcement Monday suggests Amazon’s focus is largely on domestic services — brokerage, drayage, warehousing, final-mile, inventory management, and distribution. Within each of those categories, Amazon will contend with a set of competitors that range from large, diversified, and often well-capitalized players, to the normal cohort of smaller providers. Given the highly fragmented nature of logistics on the whole, and even within each subcategory, this will be a test of whether Amazon’s technological might and huge scale will overpower businesses that focus on people-to-people relationships first and foremost. The not-so-small matter of which shippers might be reluctant to turn over the keys to their supply chains to a company that has become famously dominant in e-commerce, fulfillment and web services overlaps with the fragmentation issue. Competitors in each service category will also be split into ones that cater to many shipper verticals and ones that focus on single verticals. In the announcement, Amazon specifically mentioned automotive, healthcare, electronics, apparel & beauty, and food & beverage, as key verticals it would target. Some of those verticals can be neatly split into manufacturer and retailer segments. Are retailers ready to give Amazon intricate information on their supplier networks or customs information? Or will Amazon find more joy in targeting upstream suppliers within the retail industry, or larger shippers in the industrial sector? ‘Base load’ benefits Aside from just generating more revenue from its decade of investment in third-party logistics, the benefit to Amazon bundling its services is clear: By providing what one LinkedIn commenter called a “base load“ of third-party cargo across various modes, Amazon could essentially subsidize or even zero out the cost of moving its own freight. That “own” freight could take the form of volume from third-party sellers already on Amazon’s e-commerce platform or its own products that Amazon moves as an outright shipper itself. That’s a target worth chasing for a company with the scale and reach of Amazon. And it would give them yet another lever to distance themselves from competition across the various categories in which it participates. That even includes AWS, where it is competing with Google and Microsoft to collect monetizable logistics industry information. Still... “This is not like AWS,” Dave Ross, chief strategy officer of less-than-truckload carrier Roadrunner and a former equities analyst, wrote on LinkedIn. “There is no ‘move to the cloud’ when it comes to freight. Amazon is adding no new capacity. [It] just wants to be a middleman to replace your current middleman. I’ll take the ‘under’ on its overall impact to the transportation & logistics industry after hype and headlines pass.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Amazon’s 3PL foray: marketing ploy or existential threat to 3PLs?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Rates to the US East Coast and Europe are down by as much as $500 per FEU in recent weeks as ocean carriers look to lift volumes that softened in April.</div>

Rates to the US East Coast and Europe are down by as much as $500 per FEU in recent weeks as ocean carriers look to lift volumes that softened in April.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean rates out of India to the US and Europe have weakened in recent weeks as carriers face an uncertain demand environment amid geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges. Spot booking rates from West India to the US East Coast have fallen $400 to $500 per FEU from late-April levels, an analysis of new data collected by the Journal of Commerce from local freight forwarders indicates. Forwarder sources have pegged spot pricing by lead European carriers for loads from Nhava Sheva to New York at between $2,200 and $2,500 per FEU, while reporting even lower quotes of $2,000 to $2,200 from Asian liners. Sources say most India-USEC carriers have extended current short-term contract rates for bookings through May after abandoning rate increase plans for April and early May. But carriers continue to file fresh rate increase notices on the trade lane, including two separate hikes of $1,000 per container now planned by Hapag-Lloyd for May 15 and June 1. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, assessed India-USEC spot rates at $1,950 per FEU as of May 5, marking a 10% week-over-week decline. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="893ffa5c-0a69-45c7-a555-425e44318711"></dynamic-object></div>Similarly, on the India-Europe trade lane, active carriers have pushed rates lower by up to $500 per FEU over the past two weeks in an effort to lift volumes as close as possible to their declared space allocations. Rates from Nhava Sheva to Felixstowe/London Gateway/Rotterdam now stand at about $2,000 per FEU, the analysis shows. Despite tactical price adjustments, cargo liftings for some of the recent West India-USEC/North Europe sailings have been lighter, with average capacity utilization near 70%, down from the 80% to 90% level normally fulfilled and/or targeted by carriers, according to the sources. Forwarders generally believe the rate pressure will persist through the second quarter, which is traditionally a slack period for Indian exports following the fiscal year-end rush in March. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ae1df54b-4003-46b5-a8c3-e0d35707e941"></dynamic-object></div>Apart from that seasonal factor, carriers’ heightened sales efforts to pick up additional volumes from India to compensate for the lack of or limited availability of transshipment cargo out of the Middle East hubs have contributed to the downward rate shift, liner executives agree. “There has been a 20% bump in our Indian westbound allocations for the USEC since the Middle East war,” a sales executive at a major European liner told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also seeing consistent sailings across major services, so there is no pricing opportunity to gain from blanked capacity.” Corroborating that, industry data points to only two void calls across five India-USEC connections operated by Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM and Maersk in the week 19 to 23 period. Data from PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce, shows Indian exports to the US East Coast jumped more than 20% in March from February, to 73,540 TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Ocean rates out of India to the US and Europe have weakened in recent weeks as carriers face an uncertain demand environment amid geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges. Spot booking rates from West India to the US East Coast have fallen $400 to $500 per FEU from late-April levels, an analysis of new data collected by the Journal of Commerce from local freight forwarders indicates. Forwarder sources have pegged spot pricing by lead European carriers for loads from Nhava Sheva to New York at between $2,200 and $2,500 per FEU, while reporting even lower quotes of $2,000 to $2,200 from Asian liners. Sources say most India-USEC carriers have extended current short-term contract rates for bookings through May after abandoning rate increase plans for April and early May. But carriers continue to file fresh rate increase notices on the trade lane, including two separate hikes of $1,000 per container now planned by Hapag-Lloyd for May 15 and June 1. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, assessed India-USEC spot rates at $1,950 per FEU as of May 5, marking a 10% week-over-week decline. Similarly, on the India-Europe trade lane, active carriers have pushed rates lower by up to $500 per FEU over the past two weeks in an effort to lift volumes as close as possible to their declared space allocations. Rates from Nhava Sheva to Felixstowe/London Gateway/Rotterdam now stand at about $2,000 per FEU, the analysis shows. Despite tactical price adjustments, cargo liftings for some of the recent West India-USEC/North Europe sailings have been lighter, with average capacity utilization near 70%, down from the 80% to 90% level normally fulfilled and/or targeted by carriers, according to the sources. Forwarders generally believe the rate pressure will persist through the second quarter, which is traditionally a slack period for Indian exports following the fiscal year-end rush in March. Apart from that seasonal factor, carriers’ heightened sales efforts to pick up additional volumes from India to compensate for the lack of or limited availability of transshipment cargo out of the Middle East hubs have contributed to the downward rate shift, liner executives agree. “There has been a 20% bump in our Indian westbound allocations for the USEC since the Middle East war,” a sales executive at a major European liner told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also seeing consistent sailings across major services, so there is no pricing opportunity to gain from blanked capacity.” Corroborating that, industry data points to only two void calls across five India-USEC connections operated by Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM and Maersk in the week 19 to 23 period. Data from PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce, shows Indian exports to the US East Coast jumped more than 20% in March from February, to 73,540 TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Container Shipping News

Indian westbound rates under pressure amid demand uncertainty, overcapacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 14-day lead time now in place at Asian hubs would become a “global standard” for vessels seeking bunker fuel should the key waterway remain closed for another month, says S&amp;P Global’s Fotios Katsoulas.</div>

The 14-day lead time now in place at Asian hubs would become a “global standard” for vessels seeking bunker fuel should the key waterway remain closed for another month, says S&P Global’s Fotios Katsoulas.

<div class="phx-topic">Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed for another month would expand the two-week bunker refueling lead times now required in Asia across the globe and create a new price floor for low-sulfur fuel oil, energy analysts at S&amp;P Global warn. Much of Asia’s bunker fuel is sourced from Persian Gulf countries and exported via Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the Middle East war began Feb. 28. The availability of the fuel has tightened across key Asian hubs, where carriers report wait times of up to 15 days in Singapore and at Japanese ports. “The 14-day lead time will become the global standard, not just an Eastern one,” Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&amp;P Global Energy, told the Journal of Commerce. “We anticipate a permanent price floor for very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Asia as the cost of rerouting supply from the US and Europe becomes baked into the local market.” Katsoulas said the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz will also lead to refining imbalances and potentially force a shift in production away from marine fuels toward higher-value distillates such as jet fuel and diesel, further strangling bunker availability. <h3>Uptick in satellite fuel hub activity </h3>While the regional nature of the conflict may be having a limited effect on major container shipping trade lanes, about 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports are moved via Hormuz, and its closure is being acutely felt at key bunkering hubs. Katsoulas said as Singapore and Fujairah in the UAE become increasingly difficult to navigate, there has been a significant uptick in activity at satellite hubs. Chinese ports at Zhoushan and Hong Kong are acting as overflow valves for North Asian traffic, while Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia are seeing a surge in bunker demand from container lines that traditionally would have topped off in Singapore. Port Louis in Mauritius is emerging as a vital pit stop for vessels making long-haul voyages to and from Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, although the fast-growing demand has seen lead times there jump to more than 10 days. But Katsoulas said the most significant change in container line behavior has been a shift toward what he labeled “extreme tankering.” “Lines are no longer looking for the cheapest fuel; they are looking for the highest volume per call,” he said. “We see vessels maxing out their tanks in Rotterdam or the US Gulf — carrying a higher fuel load than is aerodynamically or economically optimal— to ensure they can bypass the volatility of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia entirely. “This heavy-lifting strategy is effectively a hedge against being caught in a dry port in the East,” Katsoulas added. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. <h3>‘Project Freedom’ paused </h3>The shifting bunker market dynamics come as a US initiative to free vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has been paused, mere days after it began. In a social media post Wednesday, President Donald Trump said “Project Freedom,” announced Sunday, was put on hold because “great progress” was being made on a deal with Iran to end hostilities. The Pentagon estimated that about 22,500 mariners on 1,550 vessels were still trapped in the Persian Gulf. Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at shipping association Bimco, called the suspension of Project Freedom so soon after its launch “a surprise.” “Changes announced at short notice or changes that are surprising, such as the sudden suspension of Project Freedom, are a challenge for shipowners attempting to assess the risks and planning for leaving the Persian Gulf,” Larsen said in a statement Wednesday. “While a few ships made it out safely while Project Freedom was in place, it was clear that transits without coordination with Iran entailed significant risk,” he added. Indeed, that was demonstrated Tuesday when a CMA CGM vessel was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The carrier said in a statement that the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care ... CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew,” the carrier said. Reuters reported that the vessel <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/cma-cgm-container-ship-hit-strait-hormuz-injuring-crew-2026-05-06/">was hit by an “Iranian projectile”</a> while moving past the coast of Oman at night. The ongoing security concerns are keeping the waterway firmly out of bounds to commercial shipping. “The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an update Tuesday. “The safety of our crews and personnel remains our top priority. We will continue to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz for now and instead <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-msc-to-use-feeders-to-restore-upper-persian-gulf-cargo-links-6214083">use third-party feeder services to serve Upper Gulf ports</a>.” Meanwhile, the US, alongside Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, on Tuesday presented a draft of a UN Security Council resolution defending freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. “The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to hold the world’s economy hostage with its efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, threats to attack ships in the Strait, laying of sea mines that pose a danger to shipping, and attempts to charge tolls for the world’s most important waterway,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing the draft resolution. The resolution requires Iran to cease attacks on ships, and to stop laying mines and applying tolls on vessels using Hormuz. It also demands that Iran disclose the number and location of the mines it has laid and cooperate with efforts to remove them, while also supporting the creation of a humanitarian corridor. The US expects the Security Council to vote on the resolution “in the next couple of days.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed for another month would expand the two-week bunker refueling lead times now required in Asia across the globe and create a new price floor for low-sulfur fuel oil, energy analysts at S&P Global warn. Much of Asia’s bunker fuel is sourced from Persian Gulf countries and exported via Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the Middle East war began Feb. 28. The availability of the fuel has tightened across key Asian hubs, where carriers report wait times of up to 15 days in Singapore and at Japanese ports. “The 14-day lead time will become the global standard, not just an Eastern one,” Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&P Global Energy, told the Journal of Commerce. “We anticipate a permanent price floor for very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Asia as the cost of rerouting supply from the US and Europe becomes baked into the local market.” Katsoulas said the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz will also lead to refining imbalances and potentially force a shift in production away from marine fuels toward higher-value distillates such as jet fuel and diesel, further strangling bunker availability. Uptick in satellite fuel hub activity While the regional nature of the conflict may be having a limited effect on major container shipping trade lanes, about 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports are moved via Hormuz, and its closure is being acutely felt at key bunkering hubs. Katsoulas said as Singapore and Fujairah in the UAE become increasingly difficult to navigate, there has been a significant uptick in activity at satellite hubs. Chinese ports at Zhoushan and Hong Kong are acting as overflow valves for North Asian traffic, while Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia are seeing a surge in bunker demand from container lines that traditionally would have topped off in Singapore. Port Louis in Mauritius is emerging as a vital pit stop for vessels making long-haul voyages to and from Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, although the fast-growing demand has seen lead times there jump to more than 10 days. But Katsoulas said the most significant change in container line behavior has been a shift toward what he labeled “extreme tankering.” “Lines are no longer looking for the cheapest fuel; they are looking for the highest volume per call,” he said. “We see vessels maxing out their tanks in Rotterdam or the US Gulf — carrying a higher fuel load than is aerodynamically or economically optimal— to ensure they can bypass the volatility of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia entirely. “This heavy-lifting strategy is effectively a hedge against being caught in a dry port in the East,” Katsoulas added. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. ‘Project Freedom’ paused The shifting bunker market dynamics come as a US initiative to free vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has been paused, mere days after it began. In a social media post Wednesday, President Donald Trump said “Project Freedom,” announced Sunday, was put on hold because “great progress” was being made on a deal with Iran to end hostilities. The Pentagon estimated that about 22,500 mariners on 1,550 vessels were still trapped in the Persian Gulf. Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at shipping association Bimco, called the suspension of Project Freedom so soon after its launch “a surprise.” “Changes announced at short notice or changes that are surprising, such as the sudden suspension of Project Freedom, are a challenge for shipowners attempting to assess the risks and planning for leaving the Persian Gulf,” Larsen said in a statement Wednesday. “While a few ships made it out safely while Project Freedom was in place, it was clear that transits without coordination with Iran entailed significant risk,” he added. Indeed, that was demonstrated Tuesday when a CMA CGM vessel was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The carrier said in a statement that the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care ... CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew,” the carrier said. Reuters reported that the vessel was hit by an “Iranian projectile” while moving past the coast of Oman at night. The ongoing security concerns are keeping the waterway firmly out of bounds to commercial shipping. “The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an update Tuesday. “The safety of our crews and personnel remains our top priority. We will continue to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz for now and instead use third-party feeder services to serve Upper Gulf ports .” Meanwhile, the US, alongside Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, on Tuesday presented a draft of a UN Security Council resolution defending freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. “The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to hold the world’s economy hostage with its efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, threats to attack ships in the Strait, laying of sea mines that pose a danger to shipping, and attempts to charge tolls for the world’s most important waterway,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing the draft resolution. The resolution requires Iran to cease attacks on ships, and to stop laying mines and applying tolls on vessels using Hormuz. It also demands that Iran disclose the number and location of the mines it has laid and cooperate with efforts to remove them, while also supporting the creation of a humanitarian corridor. The US expects the Security Council to vote on the resolution “in the next couple of days.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

International ports

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale.</div>

Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale.

<div class="phx-topic">Canada has long discussed trade diversification, but has not consistently organized for it. To move beyond slogans and achieve true economic resilience and prosperity, Canada should establish a unified national strategy, set clear diversification targets, and foster sustained collaboration among governments, industry, and trade infrastructure partners responsible for moving Canadian goods to market. Shifting from rhetoric to execution matters as the external environment is becoming more complex. For decades, Canada has relied heavily on the US as its principal trading partner. That relationship remains vital and deeply integrated, but supply chain shocks, geopolitical tensions and volatile trade policy expose the risks of over-concentration. Across Canada’s exporters and freight transportation sector, there is growing recognition that reducing that risk will require more than ambition. To address these risks, Canada should prioritize coordinated investment in infrastructure, regulatory alignment across jurisdictions, and targeted trade-enablement policies. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney used the metaphor “taking the sign out of the window” to describe a more open, outward-looking Canada. While it was a powerful image, signaling intent is not the same as executing a strategy. Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale. That is why the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gct-vancouver-port-to-jointly-study-roberts-bank-terminal-project-6207642">recently announced memorandum of understanding</a> (MOU) between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and Global Container Terminals (GCT) matters. It should not be seen as a narrow port story or simply as an agreement between two organizations. It signals a more integrated approach to delivering nationally significant trade infrastructure. The proposed collaboration to advance Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) reflects something Canada has too often lacked: alignment between public mandate, long-term system planning, operational expertise, and investment capacity. That matters far beyond British Columbia’s Lower Mainland. If Canada wants producers in the Prairies, in the North and across the West to expand into Indo-Pacific, European and other non-US markets, then the transportation system cannot remain a patchwork of disconnected decisions, fragmented approvals and recurring bottlenecks. It must function as a network. RBT2 is not just another project on a list. It has been identified by transportation leaders as one of the key trade-enabling investments needed to maintain export capacity, improve system reliability and support long-term trade growth. More importantly, the VFPA-GCT partnership points to a delivery model Canada needs more of, in which institutions align on execution rather than operate in parallel silos. <h3>Transport leaders seeking project execution, not promises </h3>In a country where major infrastructure projects are often slowed by fragmented planning, uncertain sequencing, and prolonged approvals, such alignment is not incidental. It is strategic, and it is not just about containers or one terminal. It is about whether Canada is prepared to treat trade diversification as a systemic challenge. Ports matter. Rail capacity matters. Inland terminals matter. First-mile and last-mile connections matter. Regulatory timelines matter. So does the ability of governments, infrastructure owners, carriers, terminals, and shippers to work from a shared understanding of priorities. When those elements are misaligned, congestion, delay and lost competitiveness follow. When they are aligned, the entire network performs better. Recent findings from the Western Transportation Advisory Council’s Compass Survey of transportation executives reinforce this point. Transportation leaders are not seeking abstract policy promises, but execution. The survey found strong alignment around three key recommendations: invest in trade-enabling infrastructure, ensure corridor reliability, and remove chokepoints. Among these, infrastructure investment was identified as the single-most-impactful government lever for reducing trade risk. The message is straightforward: Canada knows much of what needs to be done. The real test is whether it can deliver. This focus on execution is also why the VFPA-GCT MOU matters nationally. If it shifts RBT2 from prolonged debate to integrated delivery, it will do more than expand container capacity. It will demonstrate that Canada can still bring together the institutions, skills and capital required to execute projects vital to the national economy. It will show that collaboration can unlock efficiencies, reduce duplication and boost the nation’s competitiveness. Canada’s challenge is now delivery, not diagnosis. That is what makes the VFPA-GCT partnership so important. It is not the full solution, but it models the institutional alignment Canada needs: focusing on execution, not just intent. Trade diversification is not a slogan; it is a system. For that system to work, collaboration cannot be an afterthought. It must be the strategy. Lindsay Kislock is president and CEO of the Western Transportation Advisory Council. Contact her at <a href="mailto:lkislock@westac.com">lkislock@westac.com</a>. </div>

Canada has long discussed trade diversification, but has not consistently organized for it. To move beyond slogans and achieve true economic resilience and prosperity, Canada should establish a unified national strategy, set clear diversification targets, and foster sustained collaboration among governments, industry, and trade infrastructure partners responsible for moving Canadian goods to market. Shifting from rhetoric to execution matters as the external environment is becoming more complex. For decades, Canada has relied heavily on the US as its principal trading partner. That relationship remains vital and deeply integrated, but supply chain shocks, geopolitical tensions and volatile trade policy expose the risks of over-concentration. Across Canada’s exporters and freight transportation sector, there is growing recognition that reducing that risk will require more than ambition. To address these risks, Canada should prioritize coordinated investment in infrastructure, regulatory alignment across jurisdictions, and targeted trade-enablement policies. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney used the metaphor “taking the sign out of the window” to describe a more open, outward-looking Canada. While it was a powerful image, signaling intent is not the same as executing a strategy. Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale. That is why the recently announced memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and Global Container Terminals (GCT) matters. It should not be seen as a narrow port story or simply as an agreement between two organizations. It signals a more integrated approach to delivering nationally significant trade infrastructure. The proposed collaboration to advance Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) reflects something Canada has too often lacked: alignment between public mandate, long-term system planning, operational expertise, and investment capacity. That matters far beyond British Columbia’s Lower Mainland. If Canada wants producers in the Prairies, in the North and across the West to expand into Indo-Pacific, European and other non-US markets, then the transportation system cannot remain a patchwork of disconnected decisions, fragmented approvals and recurring bottlenecks. It must function as a network. RBT2 is not just another project on a list. It has been identified by transportation leaders as one of the key trade-enabling investments needed to maintain export capacity, improve system reliability and support long-term trade growth. More importantly, the VFPA-GCT partnership points to a delivery model Canada needs more of, in which institutions align on execution rather than operate in parallel silos. Transport leaders seeking project execution, not promises In a country where major infrastructure projects are often slowed by fragmented planning, uncertain sequencing, and prolonged approvals, such alignment is not incidental. It is strategic, and it is not just about containers or one terminal. It is about whether Canada is prepared to treat trade diversification as a systemic challenge. Ports matter. Rail capacity matters. Inland terminals matter. First-mile and last-mile connections matter. Regulatory timelines matter. So does the ability of governments, infrastructure owners, carriers, terminals, and shippers to work from a shared understanding of priorities. When those elements are misaligned, congestion, delay and lost competitiveness follow. When they are aligned, the entire network performs better. Recent findings from the Western Transportation Advisory Council’s Compass Survey of transportation executives reinforce this point. Transportation leaders are not seeking abstract policy promises, but execution. The survey found strong alignment around three key recommendations: invest in trade-enabling infrastructure, ensure corridor reliability, and remove chokepoints. Among these, infrastructure investment was identified as the single-most-impactful government lever for reducing trade risk. The message is straightforward: Canada knows much of what needs to be done. The real test is whether it can deliver. This focus on execution is also why the VFPA-GCT MOU matters nationally. If it shifts RBT2 from prolonged debate to integrated delivery, it will do more than expand container capacity. It will demonstrate that Canada can still bring together the institutions, skills and capital required to execute projects vital to the national economy. It will show that collaboration can unlock efficiencies, reduce duplication and boost the nation’s competitiveness. Canada’s challenge is now delivery, not diagnosis. That is what makes the VFPA-GCT partnership so important. It is not the full solution, but it models the institutional alignment Canada needs: focusing on execution, not just intent. Trade diversification is not a slogan; it is a system. For that system to work, collaboration cannot be an afterthought. It must be the strategy. Lindsay Kislock is president and CEO of the Western Transportation Advisory Council. Contact her at lkislock@westac.com .

Canada must get serious about trade diversification

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s threatened, and actual, withdrawal from numerous international groups and forums can eventually upset the relative stability that has existed in post-World War II global trade, writes Ted Prince.</div>

The Trump administration’s threatened, and actual, withdrawal from numerous international groups and forums can eventually upset the relative stability that has existed in post-World War II global trade, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Following World War II, the US led the establishment of numerous multilateral organizations in the belief that a rules-based international order could prevent future global conflicts and promote stability. Our industry has grown and prospered under this doctrine. Today, this post-war consensus is under strain. While our oft-threatened NATO withdrawal is problematic due to (then) Sen. Marco Rubio’s legislation prohibiting any US President from unilaterally withdrawing from the group, this administration has eliminated many multilateral arrangements. On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced the US’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations. It is worth reviewing how just a handful of these organizations impact our industry. <h3>Trade and tariffs </h3>The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 to serve as a voice for developing nations within the international economic system. From 1968 through 1974, UNCTAD considered “Liner Code” proposals that might have been favorably received by the current administration with its avowed interest in reviving US-flag shipping. One proposal allocated cargo between two countries as follows: one-third each to the fleets of the origin and destination country, with the remainder “open.” This code was never codified as it ran into objections of inefficiency, higher freight costs, protection of weak national lines, and conflict with liberal/trade rules. These trade rules originated from UNCTAD’s complementary organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a multilateral treaty ratified in 1947 to foster free trade by reducing tariffs. It was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China’s membership in 2001 is viewed as an inflection point in global trade growth. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings, the WTO is confronted with Trump’s tariff initiatives. Its director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has called for urgent reforms to maintain a stable, rules-based trading system against unilateral action. It is unclear how that will end. <h3>Law of the sea </h3>With the Strait of Hormuz generating global attention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty adopted in 1982 and effective since 1994, has generated renewed interest. It established a comprehensive legal framework for maritime zones that governs navigation, environmental protection, and provides dispute resolution mechanisms. The United States never ratified UNCLOS, despite recognizing most of its provisions as customary international law. The Reagan administration was opposed to terms governing deep seabed mining. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously supported ratification in 2004, the full Senate has never held a final vote because the required two-thirds approval for treaty ratification was not apparent. UNCLOS treats the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, meaning the regime of transit passage applies. Ships of all states have the right of unimpeded transit through the strait even when passing through the territorial sea of bordering states (e.g., Iran and Oman). <h3>IMO net-zero </h3>The United States is still an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for regulating international shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its most ambitious policy is its “net-zero” framework, which sets various intermediate targets on the way to net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050. This was the first international effort to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing across an entire industry. However, last October, the US contended the proposal relies on costly and unproven fuels while unfairly penalizing existing technologies. This objection forced the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">postponement of adoption</a>. Although positions vary widely, there is an industry consensus on the need for uniform rules. Many ports and US shipowners already have decarbonization initiatives or low‑carbon fuel commitments underway. Certainty is essential for expensive assets with long lives. In today’s uncertain world, multilateral threats are harder to insulate against because they may obviate specific bilateral — or unilateral — actions. They can propagate quickly through interconnected trade, transportation, and finance networks. These lifelines are core to our industry and often require coordinated international policy actions; however, they can be slow (or politically difficult) to create quickly. As the architect (and major funder) of core multilateral institutions, will the US continue to use these forums to set rules, coordinate macroeconomic policy, and resolve disputes? Or, will we see a world where other nations seek alternative arrangements? Our entire industry literally hangs in that balance. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Following World War II, the US led the establishment of numerous multilateral organizations in the belief that a rules-based international order could prevent future global conflicts and promote stability. Our industry has grown and prospered under this doctrine. Today, this post-war consensus is under strain. While our oft-threatened NATO withdrawal is problematic due to (then) Sen. Marco Rubio’s legislation prohibiting any US President from unilaterally withdrawing from the group, this administration has eliminated many multilateral arrangements. On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced the US’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations. It is worth reviewing how just a handful of these organizations impact our industry. Trade and tariffs The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 to serve as a voice for developing nations within the international economic system. From 1968 through 1974, UNCTAD considered “Liner Code” proposals that might have been favorably received by the current administration with its avowed interest in reviving US-flag shipping. One proposal allocated cargo between two countries as follows: one-third each to the fleets of the origin and destination country, with the remainder “open.” This code was never codified as it ran into objections of inefficiency, higher freight costs, protection of weak national lines, and conflict with liberal/trade rules. These trade rules originated from UNCTAD’s complementary organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a multilateral treaty ratified in 1947 to foster free trade by reducing tariffs. It was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China’s membership in 2001 is viewed as an inflection point in global trade growth. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings, the WTO is confronted with Trump’s tariff initiatives. Its director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has called for urgent reforms to maintain a stable, rules-based trading system against unilateral action. It is unclear how that will end. Law of the sea With the Strait of Hormuz generating global attention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty adopted in 1982 and effective since 1994, has generated renewed interest. It established a comprehensive legal framework for maritime zones that governs navigation, environmental protection, and provides dispute resolution mechanisms. The United States never ratified UNCLOS, despite recognizing most of its provisions as customary international law. The Reagan administration was opposed to terms governing deep seabed mining. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously supported ratification in 2004, the full Senate has never held a final vote because the required two-thirds approval for treaty ratification was not apparent. UNCLOS treats the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, meaning the regime of transit passage applies. Ships of all states have the right of unimpeded transit through the strait even when passing through the territorial sea of bordering states (e.g., Iran and Oman). IMO net-zero The United States is still an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for regulating international shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its most ambitious policy is its “net-zero” framework, which sets various intermediate targets on the way to net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050. This was the first international effort to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing across an entire industry. However, last October, the US contended the proposal relies on costly and unproven fuels while unfairly penalizing existing technologies. This objection forced the postponement of adoption . Although positions vary widely, there is an industry consensus on the need for uniform rules. Many ports and US shipowners already have decarbonization initiatives or low‑carbon fuel commitments underway. Certainty is essential for expensive assets with long lives. In today’s uncertain world, multilateral threats are harder to insulate against because they may obviate specific bilateral — or unilateral — actions. They can propagate quickly through interconnected trade, transportation, and finance networks. These lifelines are core to our industry and often require coordinated international policy actions; however, they can be slow (or politically difficult) to create quickly. As the architect (and major funder) of core multilateral institutions, will the US continue to use these forums to set rules, coordinate macroeconomic policy, and resolve disputes? Or, will we see a world where other nations seek alternative arrangements? Our entire industry literally hangs in that balance. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Container shipping’s ‘multilateral world’ under threat by US-driven strain

Index

The index for each vessel type is produced from two variables: the number of those vessels chartered compared to the previous month, and the lead time to charter those vessels compared to the previous month. If fewer vessels are chartered than in the previous month, this implies more capacity may be available. If the lead time needed to charter vessels is shorter than the previous month, this implies capacity is more quickly available. Both these scenarios imply a more positive market position from the shipper’s perspective. A rising index line indicates a more positive market position due to the availability of capacity. The start point of 100 denotes the point that accurate results began. The trend is taken from this position (February 2025) and shows movement in capacity compared to this point. The individual indices of the five major vessel types are weighted and consolidated to produce. The data is collected by the Journal of Commerce Breakbulk Shipper Group

Breakbulk ship capacity indicator (JOC) 

JOC Breakbulk and Project Cargo Index Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Midsize importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026–27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.</div>

Midsize importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026–27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.

<div class="phx-topic">Midsize US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026–27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Midsize importers — those moving approximately 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025–26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-imposes-emergency-fuel-surcharges-on-third-party-feeder-cargo-6207629">due to the war in the Middle East</a> and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026–27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-handling-of-fuel-surcharges-agitates-small-midsize-trans-pac-shippers-6208047">emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause</a> that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, midsize retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker [charge] looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and EBSs in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” <h3>Contract extensions not a big issue </h3>In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026–27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025–26 service contracts, midsize BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7f641553-97ec-4014-8e54-fef6408538d9"></dynamic-object></div>But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025–26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. <h3>Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs </h3>As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. NAC rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.</div>

Midsize US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026–27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Midsize importers — those moving approximately 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025–26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel due to the war in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026–27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, midsize retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker [charge] looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and EBSs in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” Contract extensions not a big issue In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026–27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025–26 service contracts, midsize BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025–26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. NAC rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.

Trans-Pacific

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing. </div>

The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing.

<div class="phx-topic">Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing</a>. “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. <h3>Growing pressure to tighten standards </h3>Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/court-to-consider-whether-freight-brokers-can-be-held-liable-for-negligent-hiring/">legal liability</a> brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-dangerous-trucking-schemes-putting-americans-at-risk-60-minutes-transcript/">Recent media coverage</a> about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing . “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. Growing pressure to tighten standards Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of legal liability brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. Recent media coverage about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Truckload

Truck brokers

Trucking News

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs. </div>

New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. <h3>Scrutinizing transshipment </h3>The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. Scrutinizing transshipment The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

Use code GTT26W 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 SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 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

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TRAC Intermodal’s exit from the massive chassis cooperative on June 1, just one year after Flexi-Van’s departure, reflects the shift from a primarily pool-owned and operated chassis market to one that is trucker-owned or leased. </div>

TRAC Intermodal’s exit from the massive chassis cooperative on June 1, just one year after Flexi-Van’s departure, reflects the shift from a primarily pool-owned and operated chassis market to one that is trucker-owned or leased. 

<div class="phx-topic">TRAC Intermodal will leave the Southern California-based “Pool of Pools” on June 1, effectively ending the massive chassis cooperative that has served truckers and their customers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach since 2015. However, executives at the region’s three intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) — TRAC, DCLI and Flexi-Van — are assuring users they will continue to have access to a sufficient number of chassis for the 2026 peak season and beyond.“An emphatic ‘yes,’” said Than Seeds, president of Flexi-Van, which exited the Pool of Pools (PoP) in May 2025. “I am confident that right now there is so much surplus chassis capacity in the market that we can handle a couple of peak seasons right on top of each other.”  The PoP began operations in 2015 with about 80,000 chassis; it is now down to about 25,000, according to the Pool of Pools website. With Flexi-Van’s departure from the pool a year ago and TRAC’s announcement this week, it leaves only DCLI as a member of the Pool of Pools, effectively bringing an end to the cooperative that began business just over 11 years ago. Jake Gilene, TRAC’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the decision to leave PoP reflects the changing environment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex from a primarily pool-owned and -operated chassis market to a trucker-owned or -leased market. In 2015, almost 80% of the chassis in Southern California were controlled by PoP members. That number has flipped to 75%-80% trucker-owned or -leased because of changing operating conditions that call for trucker and customer control of the chassis, Gilene said. He also said the move to leave PoP was based in large part on feedback from customers who were interested in more of a hybrid operating model that offered both a pool-type product and a daily product for customers who can use the chassis however they wish and be billed a daily rate. “Depending on what the customer is looking for, depending on what the motor carrier is looking for, we’re going to offer both options in the market,” Gilene said. <h3>Formed to ease logistical headaches </h3><a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-long-beach-chassis-lessors-form-neutral-chassis-pool-5247434">The Pool of Pools was formed in Los Angeles-Long Beach in 2015</a>, when container lines serving the US market ceased their decades-long practice of providing chassis to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) for a nominal fee with each booking. At the same time, a group of trans-Pacific container lines formed the G6 alliance, with the six member carriers serving all 12 container terminals in the port complex. This created logistical problems for carriers in repositioning the chassis where they were needed. A decision was made by the ports and their stakeholders to develop a neutral, or “grey,” chassis pool to eliminate the frustrating and costly requirements that truckers faced — delivering a container to one terminal but the chassis to another because of different ownership of the assets. The IEPs said that while each company has its own business model, they feel the transition out of the Pool of Pools will be seamless to truckers and their customers.  “DCLI remains committed to a comprehensive chassis pool solution to the LA-LB market,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s chief administrative officer. “We intend to maintain our terminal footprints, allowing motor carriers to pick up and drop off chassis at marine terminal and rail locations across the region.”  <h3>Trucker concerns for new environment </h3>While the Pool of Pools was the right solution for the post-2015 environment, motor carriers this past year have dealt with several problem areas in the port-related supply chain regarding inland point intermodal (IPI) and container handling chassis moves, said Robert Loya, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. “We have seen incidents of inadequate support when PoP chassis were short, or simply not having the right number of chassis at the right location,” Loya said. “We continue to struggle with the increasing number of ocean carrier specialized pools. These pools result in the ‘deoptimization’ of our fleets due to the inherent inefficiencies they create: increased triangulation, a higher frequency of split returns, lost driver time and increased costs.”  As the IEPs enter the post-Pool of Pools era, Loya sees several red flags the IEPs must address, including whether the port’s rail ramps will still be considered start/stop locations for the chassis providers; how demurrage will be handled if there are insufficient chassis for inland point intermodal moves and appointments are missed; and how potential billing complications will be handled for equipment picked up under the PoP rules but returned after June 1. Loya is also concerned about dual transactions, or the ability of a trucker to drop off a container and pick up another on the same trip.“Dual transactions are critical for efficiency,” he said. “There must be a mechanism to handle the interchange of these chassis without incurring extra fees.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

TRAC Intermodal will leave the Southern California-based “Pool of Pools” on June 1, effectively ending the massive chassis cooperative that has served truckers and their customers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach since 2015. However, executives at the region’s three intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) — TRAC, DCLI and Flexi-Van — are assuring users they will continue to have access to a sufficient number of chassis for the 2026 peak season and beyond. “An emphatic ‘yes,’” said Than Seeds, president of Flexi-Van, which exited the Pool of Pools (PoP) in May 2025. “I am confident that right now there is so much surplus chassis capacity in the market that we can handle a couple of peak seasons right on top of each other.”  The PoP began operations in 2015 with about 80,000 chassis; it is now down to about 25,000, according to the Pool of Pools website. With Flexi-Van’s departure from the pool a year ago and TRAC’s announcement this week, it leaves only DCLI as a member of the Pool of Pools, effectively bringing an end to the cooperative that began business just over 11 years ago. Jake Gilene, TRAC’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the decision to leave PoP reflects the changing environment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex from a primarily pool-owned and -operated chassis market to a trucker-owned or -leased market. In 2015, almost 80% of the chassis in Southern California were controlled by PoP members. That number has flipped to 75%-80% trucker-owned or -leased because of changing operating conditions that call for trucker and customer control of the chassis, Gilene said. He also said the move to leave PoP was based in large part on feedback from customers who were interested in more of a hybrid operating model that offered both a pool-type product and a daily product for customers who can use the chassis however they wish and be billed a daily rate. “Depending on what the customer is looking for, depending on what the motor carrier is looking for, we’re going to offer both options in the market,” Gilene said. Formed to ease logistical headaches  The Pool of Pools was formed in Los Angeles-Long Beach in 2015 , when container lines serving the US market ceased their decades-long practice of providing chassis to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) for a nominal fee with each booking. At the same time, a group of trans-Pacific container lines formed the G6 alliance, with the six member carriers serving all 12 container terminals in the port complex. This created logistical problems for carriers in repositioning the chassis where they were needed.  A decision was made by the ports and their stakeholders to develop a neutral, or “grey,” chassis pool to eliminate the frustrating and costly requirements that truckers faced — delivering a container to one terminal but the chassis to another because of different ownership of the assets. The IEPs said that while each company has its own business model, they feel the transition out of the Pool of Pools will be seamless to truckers and their customers.  “DCLI remains committed to a comprehensive chassis pool solution to the LA-LB market,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s chief administrative officer. “We intend to maintain our terminal footprints, allowing motor carriers to pick up and drop off chassis at marine terminal and rail locations across the region.”  Trucker concerns for new environment  While the Pool of Pools was the right solution for the post-2015 environment, motor carriers this past year have dealt with several problem areas in the port-related supply chain regarding inland point intermodal (IPI) and container handling chassis moves, said Robert Loya, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. “We have seen incidents of inadequate support when PoP chassis were short, or simply not having the right number of chassis at the right location,” Loya said. “We continue to struggle with the increasing number of ocean carrier specialized pools. These pools result in the ‘deoptimization’ of our fleets due to the inherent inefficiencies they create: increased triangulation, a higher frequency of split returns, lost driver time and increased costs.”  As the IEPs enter the post-Pool of Pools era, Loya sees several red flags the IEPs must address, including whether the port’s rail ramps will still be considered start/stop locations for the chassis providers; how demurrage will be handled if there are insufficient chassis for inland point intermodal moves and appointments are missed; and how potential billing complications will be handled for equipment picked up under the PoP rules but returned after June 1. Loya is also concerned about dual transactions, or the ability of a trucker to drop off a container and pick up another on the same trip. “Dual transactions are critical for efficiency,” he said. “There must be a mechanism to handle the interchange of these chassis without incurring extra fees.”  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .  

Surface

Demise of ‘Pool of Pools’ marks new chassis era in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited, unveiled new container handling equipment as part of a growth drive to increase capacity by 40%.</div>

The terminal, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited, unveiled new container handling equipment as part of a growth drive to increase capacity by 40%.

<div class="phx-topic">Newark — The Port of New York and New Jersey’s third-busiest marine terminal on Wednesday unveiled $100 million in new container handling equipment and related facilities, the first step in a $1 billion plan to add a new berth and more rail capacity for its main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co. Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new maintenance shop designed for the terminal’s new, larger straddle carriers, which can span four-high container stacks. Along with the new shop, PNCT took delivery of the first 15 of the straddle carriers, with another 20 set for delivery by early 2027. The new yard equipment and shop are the first phase of PNCT’s plan to increase container volumes by 40% over the next three years, its Chief Executive Jim Pellicio told the Journal of Commerce. PNCT, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), eventually plans to replace its entire fleet with 150 of the new straddle carriers, effectively increasing yard capacity by nearly a third through higher stacks. The new fleet will also be entirely diesel-electric hybrid as PNCT switches an increasing amount of its energy use to renewables. Over the past decade, PNCT has installed a solar array over its truck lanes and parking lot that takes up the equivalent of 12 acres of land, Pellicio said, generating half of the terminal’s energy. “This $100 million is a down payment on where PNCT has to go next,” Pellicio said. “The maintenance facility is built to support a much larger terminal than what we have today.” PNCT’s last upgrade cycle started in 2014, with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/upgrade-boosts-nynjs-pnct-terminal-capacity-5224445">$600 million investment</a> that included adding about 17 acres of terminal space, strengthening its three berths for larger ships, and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">adding two ultra-large ship cranes</a>. By 2020, that project had increased PNCT’s nominal capacity to about 2 million TEUs, up from 1.4 million TEUs. The next investment cycle will bring PNCT’s capacity to about 2.8 million TEUs, Pellicio said, adding that the terminal could add another 150 longshore jobs by 2029 due to the expansion. A big part of that upgrade will be an additional 68 acres on the terminal’s eastern end. The new space will come from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/newark-port-project-to-give-mscs-terminal-more-room-to-grow-5703152">the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s $198 million rehabilitation</a> of a general cargo berth on the Newark peninsula’s southeastern end, along with the relocation of other port tenant properties to make way for container operations. The rehabilitation of Newark’s southeastern portion will provide PNCT another 400 feet of berth space on its eastern end by 2028. PNCT is also renovating another 700 feet of berth space on its western end, which will turn it into a four-berth facility. Pellicio said the additional space would allow PNCT to handle two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously, along with a 9,000-TEU ship. Currently, its three berths can handle two 9,000-TEU ships and one 18,000-TEU ship. Although ships of that size will also require further dredging of the NY-NJ port to a 55-foot depth, Pellicio said it’s important to have PNCT ready for that next step. “There are no ships that need a 55-foot depth today, but you better build it today because they won’t come otherwise,” he said. <h3>Will add on-dock rail yard </h3>Along with the new equipment and berth, PNCT plans to add an on-dock rail yard at its eastern end, which should allow containers to move more easily to railcars. PNCT currently relies on yard hostlers to ferry containers over a flyover bridge to its rail yard adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike. PNCT already leads the port in terms of inland cargo moves, with about 24% of its containers moving out on rail compared with a port-wide average of about 15%. Pellicio said the terminal needs more intermodal capacity because “MSC has a significant amount of rail containers.” “The shipping company might say ‘just take my New York boxes and leave the rail boxes for Savannah or Baltimore,’” Pellicio said. “I’m saying to them with this investment, take all the boxes off at PNCT. We will have the berths to do it and the rail to do it.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Newark — The Port of New York and New Jersey’s third-busiest marine terminal on Wednesday unveiled $100 million in new container handling equipment and related facilities, the first step in a $1 billion plan to add a new berth and more rail capacity for its main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co. Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new maintenance shop designed for the terminal’s new, larger straddle carriers, which can span four-high container stacks. Along with the new shop, PNCT took delivery of the first 15 of the straddle carriers, with another 20 set for delivery by early 2027. The new yard equipment and shop are the first phase of PNCT’s plan to increase container volumes by 40% over the next three years, its Chief Executive Jim Pellicio told the Journal of Commerce. PNCT, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), eventually plans to replace its entire fleet with 150 of the new straddle carriers, effectively increasing yard capacity by nearly a third through higher stacks. The new fleet will also be entirely diesel-electric hybrid as PNCT switches an increasing amount of its energy use to renewables. Over the past decade, PNCT has installed a solar array over its truck lanes and parking lot that takes up the equivalent of 12 acres of land, Pellicio said, generating half of the terminal’s energy. “This $100 million is a down payment on where PNCT has to go next,” Pellicio said. “The maintenance facility is built to support a much larger terminal than what we have today.” PNCT’s last upgrade cycle started in 2014, with a $600 million investment that included adding about 17 acres of terminal space, strengthening its three berths for larger ships, and adding two ultra-large ship cranes . By 2020, that project had increased PNCT’s nominal capacity to about 2 million TEUs, up from 1.4 million TEUs. The next investment cycle will bring PNCT’s capacity to about 2.8 million TEUs, Pellicio said, adding that the terminal could add another 150 longshore jobs by 2029 due to the expansion. A big part of that upgrade will be an additional 68 acres on the terminal’s eastern end. The new space will come from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s $198 million rehabilitation of a general cargo berth on the Newark peninsula’s southeastern end, along with the relocation of other port tenant properties to make way for container operations. The rehabilitation of Newark’s southeastern portion will provide PNCT another 400 feet of berth space on its eastern end by 2028. PNCT is also renovating another 700 feet of berth space on its western end, which will turn it into a four-berth facility. Pellicio said the additional space would allow PNCT to handle two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously, along with a 9,000-TEU ship. Currently, its three berths can handle two 9,000-TEU ships and one 18,000-TEU ship. Although ships of that size will also require further dredging of the NY-NJ port to a 55-foot depth, Pellicio said it’s important to have PNCT ready for that next step. “There are no ships that need a 55-foot depth today, but you better build it today because they won’t come otherwise,” he said. Will add on-dock rail yard Along with the new equipment and berth, PNCT plans to add an on-dock rail yard at its eastern end, which should allow containers to move more easily to railcars. PNCT currently relies on yard hostlers to ferry containers over a flyover bridge to its rail yard adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike. PNCT already leads the port in terms of inland cargo moves, with about 24% of its containers moving out on rail compared with a port-wide average of about 15%. Pellicio said the terminal needs more intermodal capacity because “MSC has a significant amount of rail containers.” “The shipping company might say ‘just take my New York boxes and leave the rail boxes for Savannah or Baltimore,’” Pellicio said. “I’m saying to them with this investment, take all the boxes off at PNCT. We will have the berths to do it and the rail to do it.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

NY-NJ’s Port Newark terminal takes first steps in next big expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Baltimore’s Sparrows Point Container Terminal is scheduled to debut its first berth in 2028, some 14 years after the site began its transformation from an old steel mill into a comprehensive logistics center. </div>

Baltimore’s Sparrows Point Container Terminal is scheduled to debut its first berth in 2028, some 14 years after the site began its transformation from an old steel mill into a comprehensive logistics center.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminal arm and real estate developer Tradepoint Atlantic broke ground Friday at the Port of Baltimore on what would be the first privately built container terminal in the US in 40 years, part of the ocean carrier’s massive push to build out North American capacity. Executives at Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) and Tradepoint took part in the ceremonial event at the future site of the Sparrows Point Container Terminal (SPCT). They were joined by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and other state and local officials, The groundbreaking comes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-unit-teaming-up-to-develop-new-baltimore-container-terminal-5242503">just over three years after TiL and Tradepoint announced their joint investment</a> in Sparrows Point, a 3,300-acre industrial development that was the former site of a Bethlehem Steel plant. SPCT will occupy 168 acres of the site. The terminal will have two berths, each capable of handling 18,000-TEU ships; 3,000 feet of on-dock rail track, and be capable of handling 2 million TEUs by its full buildout with a second berth. The terminal is expected to employ 1,100 longshore workers. The $1.2 billion project would be the first privately funded and operated container terminal in the US since Penn Terminals opened in Philadelphia in 1986. TiL Chief Executive Ammar Kanaan said it was a “unique project” because of the private funding, adding that Sparrows Point is a response to the port capacity constraints that came to light in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s adding capacity, much needed capacity,” Kanaan said. “With just a little bit of disruption, our ports clogged. For those in the industry that say there’s enough capacity, they are wrong.” Container demand in the mid-Atlantic appears strong. Last year, Baltimore’s Seagirt Marine Terminal handled 1.12 million total TEUs, the second highest since 2023, according to the Maryland Port Administration. Imports through the port have grown at an average annual rate of 4.5% since 2010.“This is like a renaissance for the Port of Baltimore,” said Scott Cowan, president of Local 333 International Longshoremen’s Association. “I can see us being in the top three on the East Coast in no time.”Even with the private investment, Sparrows Point will receive some government support. This week, the US Maritime Administration awarded the project $40 million under its port grants program to be used for purchasing container handling equipment. Locally, Maryland state legislators are considering $50 million in funding for the project, while the Baltimore County Council in December approved a 50-year tax abatement for the project. The government support comes as Sparrows Point’s expected costs have increased “significantly” since its 2022 announcement, Aaron Tomarchio, executive vice president of Tradepoint Atlantic, told the Journal of Commerce. The cost increases stem from overall inflation but also US tariffs on steel and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-us-tariffs-put-economic-viability-of-sts-cranes-in-doubt-6055678">ship-to-shore cranes</a>. Tradepoint owner Redwood Holdings, which bought the site in 2014, is funding half of Sparrows Point. Tradepoint currently has about 15 million square feet of warehousing and distribution centers at the site, 90% of which is leased, Tomarchio said, with room for 6 million square feet of additional space. Among its biggest tenants are spice maker McCormick, Floor &amp; Decor, Under Armor, Amazon, and Home Depot. Many of the tenants will be deconsolidating ocean freight right at the site, Tomarchio said. Tradepoint will be able to handle many of their logistics needs through its short-line railroad, as well as the stevedoring service it will provide at Sparrows Point. “This site has transformed dramatically over that 12-year period,” Tomarchio said. “There’s massive capital that’s been deployed into building these facilities and outfitting them, so they are committed to it.” <h3>Boost rail use </h3>The other big play at Sparrows Point will be the fast rail connection to Chicago, Tom Van Eynde, director for TiL’s North American assets, told the Journal of Commerce. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">Howard Street Tunnel project</a> will allow CSX Transportation to double stack its intermodal cars out of Baltimore. Only about 2% of Baltimore’s international cargo is going out on rail currently due to the tunnel height clearance limits, Van Eynde said. But given MSC’s interest in serving inland US markets, he said Sparrows Point could see 25% of its cargo heading out on rail. “Rail has not been significant out of Baltimore before Howard Street,” Van Eynde said. “When you start looking at the map, it’s the closest of any port to Chicago.” The biggest lesson that TiL took from the last five years is to build in redundant capacity for cargo surges, Van Eynde said. Sparrows Point will be a rubber-tire gantry facility that can stack containers six high at full capacity, he said, although it will initially also deploy top handlers as it begins operations. The Sparrows Point groundbreaking comes amid a slew of other terminal investments TiL is making in the US. TiL is also funding half of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-njs-port-newark-terminal-takes-first-steps-in-next-big-expansion-6211543">Port Newark Container Terminal’s $1 billion plan</a> to increase capacity by 50% over the next three years, alongside its partner Ports America. The two are also developing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-america-msc-to-invest-800-million-in-proposed-new-orleans-terminal-5234722">the $1.8 billion Louisiana International Terminal</a>, along with the state. Along with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-ship-to-shore-cranes-with-us-parts-coming-to-long-beach-6085180">new ship-to-shore cranes at its Total Terminals International facility</a> in Long Beach, TiL is slated to invest some $25 billion in US terminal assets over the next decade, Van Eynde said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminal arm and real estate developer Tradepoint Atlantic broke ground Friday at the Port of Baltimore on what would be the first privately built container terminal in the US in 40 years, part of the ocean carrier’s massive push to build out North American capacity. Executives at Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) and Tradepoint took part in the ceremonial event at the future site of the Sparrows Point Container Terminal (SPCT). They were joined by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and other state and local officials, The groundbreaking comes just over three years after TiL and Tradepoint announced their joint investment in Sparrows Point, a 3,300-acre industrial development that was the former site of a Bethlehem Steel plant. SPCT will occupy 168 acres of the site. The terminal will have two berths, each capable of handling 18,000-TEU ships; 3,000 feet of on-dock rail track, and be capable of handling 2 million TEUs by its full buildout with a second berth. The terminal is expected to employ 1,100 longshore workers. The $1.2 billion project would be the first privately funded and operated container terminal in the US since Penn Terminals opened in Philadelphia in 1986. TiL Chief Executive Ammar Kanaan said it was a “unique project” because of the private funding, adding that Sparrows Point is a response to the port capacity constraints that came to light in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s adding capacity, much needed capacity,” Kanaan said. “With just a little bit of disruption, our ports clogged. For those in the industry that say there’s enough capacity, they are wrong.” Container demand in the mid-Atlantic appears strong. Last year, Baltimore’s Seagirt Marine Terminal handled 1.12 million total TEUs, the second highest since 2023, according to the Maryland Port Administration. Imports through the port have grown at an average annual rate of 4.5% since 2010. “This is like a renaissance for the Port of Baltimore,” said Scott Cowan, president of Local 333 International Longshoremen’s Association. “I can see us being in the top three on the East Coast in no time.” Even with the private investment, Sparrows Point will receive some government support. This week, the US Maritime Administration awarded the project $40 million under its port grants program to be used for purchasing container handling equipment. Locally, Maryland state legislators are considering $50 million in funding for the project, while the Baltimore County Council in December approved a 50-year tax abatement for the project. The government support comes as Sparrows Point’s expected costs have increased “significantly” since its 2022 announcement, Aaron Tomarchio, executive vice president of Tradepoint Atlantic, told the Journal of Commerce. The cost increases stem from overall inflation but also US tariffs on steel and ship-to-shore cranes . Tradepoint owner Redwood Holdings, which bought the site in 2014, is funding half of Sparrows Point. Tradepoint currently has about 15 million square feet of warehousing and distribution centers at the site, 90% of which is leased, Tomarchio said, with room for 6 million square feet of additional space. Among its biggest tenants are spice maker McCormick, Floor & Decor, Under Armor, Amazon, and Home Depot. Many of the tenants will be deconsolidating ocean freight right at the site, Tomarchio said. Tradepoint will be able to handle many of their logistics needs through its short-line railroad, as well as the stevedoring service it will provide at Sparrows Point. “This site has transformed dramatically over that 12-year period,” Tomarchio said. “There’s massive capital that’s been deployed into building these facilities and outfitting them, so they are committed to it.” Boost rail use The other big play at Sparrows Point will be the fast rail connection to Chicago, Tom Van Eynde, director for TiL’s North American assets, told the Journal of Commerce. The Howard Street Tunnel project will allow CSX Transportation to double stack its intermodal cars out of Baltimore. Only about 2% of Baltimore’s international cargo is going out on rail currently due to the tunnel height clearance limits, Van Eynde said. But given MSC’s interest in serving inland US markets, he said Sparrows Point could see 25% of its cargo heading out on rail. “Rail has not been significant out of Baltimore before Howard Street,” Van Eynde said. “When you start looking at the map, it’s the closest of any port to Chicago.” The biggest lesson that TiL took from the last five years is to build in redundant capacity for cargo surges, Van Eynde said. Sparrows Point will be a rubber-tire gantry facility that can stack containers six high at full capacity, he said, although it will initially also deploy top handlers as it begins operations. The Sparrows Point groundbreaking comes amid a slew of other terminal investments TiL is making in the US. TiL is also funding half of Port Newark Container Terminal’s $1 billion plan to increase capacity by 50% over the next three years, alongside its partner Ports America. The two are also developing the $1.8 billion Louisiana International Terminal , along with the state. Along with new ship-to-shore cranes at its Total Terminals International facility in Long Beach, TiL is slated to invest some $25 billion in US terminal assets over the next decade, Van Eynde said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Rail News

MSC, Tradepoint begin work on first private US terminal in decades

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The long-term prospect for diesel costs and fuel surcharges is pushing US truck shippers to rethink how they move freight, and even to redesign networks. </div>

The long-term prospect for diesel costs and fuel surcharges is pushing US truck shippers to rethink how they move freight, and even to redesign networks.

<div class="phx-topic">Diesel prices stuck above $5 per gallon are adding significantly to US trucking costs, squeezing shippers between rising rates and fuel surcharges and tightening capacity, with continued geopolitical uncertainty making a return to lower fuel prices unlikely for the foreseeable future. Companies such as packaged meats manufacturer Smithfield Foods are considering multiple options to control costs. “We’ve done lane consolidation, [we’re] <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soaring-truck-rates-power-major-rebound-in-domestic-intermodal-volume-6208736">adding intermodal</a>,” Smithfield’s CEO Charles Shane Smith said on an earnings call last week in response to a question about the impact of rising fuel prices. The Virginia-based company eliminated one million road miles in 2025 by optimizing its transportation network and expects to take another million miles off the road in 2026. “We’re still looking at hedging opportunities for diesel where we can, driving fewer miles,” Smith said. But higher oil and fuel prices ripple throughout Smithfield’s freight, packaging and agricultural costs. Soaring oil prices also affect the cost of resin-based packaging, for example, and the cost of agricultural feed supporting hog production, Smith said. Andrew Silvernail, CEO of International Paper, noted that rising freight costs are not passed through directly, but recovered “through pricing over time.” “Diesel prices are putting pressure on costs across the supply chain,” Silvernail said during an earnings call last week. “Combined with an exceptionally tight freight market, this remains a strong headwind.” Fuel’s headwinds are both global and domestic, with the impact of higher fuel costs on ocean and air cargo rippling deep into trucking and rail networks, putting pressure on transportation rates shippers pay and, eventually, the costs of goods to their customers. The average price of diesel fuel in the US has been above $5 per gallon since March 16, according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was $3.81 per gallon when the war began. In 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US average diesel price stayed above $5 per gallon for 21 weeks, averaging $5.43 per gallon from March into early August. It spiked north of $5 per gallon again for 11 weeks from late August through November of that year. <h3>Dislocated freight drives costs </h3>War-linked <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cost-hit-ocean-carriers-roll-out-series-of-rate-increases-fuel-surcharges-6202474">bunker fuel surcharges</a> are raising costs for US importers and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/middle-east-fuel-shock-exacerbates-rising-us-ag-export-costs-6213888">exporters</a>, and ocean shipping lines are trying to constrain costs through increased direct sailings and slow steaming. Soaring jet fuel costs are grounding <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-jet-fuel-costs-challenging-freighter-viability-as-war-enters-second-month-6199130">air cargo capacity</a>. That’s already leading to some mismatch between freight and capacity once shipments arrive in the US, and that dislocation means more truck miles and higher fuel costs. “People who had lead times built into supply chains, those lead times have been compressed,” Ryan Carter, executive vice president of the Americas at AIT Worldwide Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Global disruption — whether caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or a pandemic — expedites demand, he said. “Time is your most valuable commodity,” Carter said. “We’ve seen an increase in tie-ins [between international and domestic transportation] that claws back time for those sourcing goods internationally that’s been lost since the conflict began.” Shippers need to be aware of the total cost impact from higher oil prices, said Jenny Vander Zanden, COO of Breakthrough, a transportation technology firm specializing in fuel cost management. “Part of that is understanding the difference between diesel and gasoline price dynamics,” Vander Zanden told the Journal of Commerce. Gas prices tend to fluctuate in sync with oil prices, but not diesel prices. One reason is that gasoline prices tend to be “elastic,” while diesel prices are not. When gasoline prices surge, consumers can, to an extent, cut back on fuel use. It’s much harder for diesel-using truckers and farmers to make fewer trips or plow fewer acres. “When I go to Walmart, I need my stuff — I don’t care if diesel prices are going higher,” said Keith Prather, managing director at Armada Corporate Intelligence. Walmart has to cover the higher diesel price to ensure goods are on its shelves for consumers. “I don’t think diesel prices are going to snap back” if oil prices drop, Prather told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s a question of how long diesel prices stay up.” <h3>Intermodal moment </h3>Intermodal rail is likely to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tailwinds-for-us-intermodal-volume-growth-strengthening-analyst-6206045">gain more business</a> the longer fuel prices remain elevated. “A revisit with intermodal is needed to think about strategic road maps to transportation,” Vander Zanden said. “There are some real savings opportunities with intermodal.” The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI) shows why that’s the case. In March, the ISI intermodal contract rate, including fuel, was up 8 cents year over year at $1.65 per mile. At $2.34 per mile, the truckload contract rate was up 50 cents from a year ago. That all-inclusive truckload contract rate leapt 14.8% year over year, with higher fuel costs accounting for more than 1,000 basis points of the increase, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis. Sans fuel, the ISI truckload rate was up only 4.4% year over year. That’s a clear indication of how much shippers are really paying in higher fuel costs. Shifting freight to intermodal is part of an answer, but shippers need to find ways to rein in miles driven by their carriers as well, especially deadhead or empty miles. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a1244989-1fd3-41a3-9782-0bf65208b331"></dynamic-object></div>If fuel costs remain elevated for months, rather than weeks, shippers will face even more pressure to rethink transportation networks. Uber Freight says the number of shippers approaching the logistics provider for network optimization is rising fast. That’s especially true for companies that shrank their inventory in late 2025 and now face high replenishment costs. “There was a big push among many companies to reduce inventory in late 2025, with the expectation they could replenish in the first quarter,” Bob Daymon, head of client freight for Uber Freight, told the Journal of Commerce. “They’re finding costs are considerably higher than they expected,” Daymon said. Shippers have “drawn mental lines” based on how long the war in the Middle East and high fuel prices last, he said, adding: “I see the queue filling up with requests for network optimization.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Diesel prices stuck above $5 per gallon are adding significantly to US trucking costs, squeezing shippers between rising rates and fuel surcharges and tightening capacity, with continued geopolitical uncertainty making a return to lower fuel prices unlikely for the foreseeable future. Companies such as packaged meats manufacturer Smithfield Foods are considering multiple options to control costs. “We’ve done lane consolidation, [we’re] adding intermodal ,” Smithfield’s CEO Charles Shane Smith said on an earnings call last week in response to a question about the impact of rising fuel prices. The Virginia-based company eliminated one million road miles in 2025 by optimizing its transportation network and expects to take another million miles off the road in 2026. “We’re still looking at hedging opportunities for diesel where we can, driving fewer miles,” Smith said. But higher oil and fuel prices ripple throughout Smithfield’s freight, packaging and agricultural costs. Soaring oil prices also affect the cost of resin-based packaging, for example, and the cost of agricultural feed supporting hog production, Smith said. Andrew Silvernail, CEO of International Paper, noted that rising freight costs are not passed through directly, but recovered “through pricing over time.” “Diesel prices are putting pressure on costs across the supply chain,” Silvernail said during an earnings call last week. “Combined with an exceptionally tight freight market, this remains a strong headwind.” Fuel’s headwinds are both global and domestic, with the impact of higher fuel costs on ocean and air cargo rippling deep into trucking and rail networks, putting pressure on transportation rates shippers pay and, eventually, the costs of goods to their customers. The average price of diesel fuel in the US has been above $5 per gallon since March 16, according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was $3.81 per gallon when the war began. In 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US average diesel price stayed above $5 per gallon for 21 weeks, averaging $5.43 per gallon from March into early August. It spiked north of $5 per gallon again for 11 weeks from late August through November of that year. Dislocated freight drives costs War-linked bunker fuel surcharges are raising costs for US importers and exporters , and ocean shipping lines are trying to constrain costs through increased direct sailings and slow steaming. Soaring jet fuel costs are grounding air cargo capacity . That’s already leading to some mismatch between freight and capacity once shipments arrive in the US, and that dislocation means more truck miles and higher fuel costs. “People who had lead times built into supply chains, those lead times have been compressed,” Ryan Carter, executive vice president of the Americas at AIT Worldwide Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Global disruption — whether caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or a pandemic — expedites demand, he said. “Time is your most valuable commodity,” Carter said. “We’ve seen an increase in tie-ins [between international and domestic transportation] that claws back time for those sourcing goods internationally that’s been lost since the conflict began.” Shippers need to be aware of the total cost impact from higher oil prices, said Jenny Vander Zanden, COO of Breakthrough, a transportation technology firm specializing in fuel cost management. “Part of that is understanding the difference between diesel and gasoline price dynamics,” Vander Zanden told the Journal of Commerce. Gas prices tend to fluctuate in sync with oil prices, but not diesel prices. One reason is that gasoline prices tend to be “elastic,” while diesel prices are not. When gasoline prices surge, consumers can, to an extent, cut back on fuel use. It’s much harder for diesel-using truckers and farmers to make fewer trips or plow fewer acres. “When I go to Walmart, I need my stuff — I don’t care if diesel prices are going higher,” said Keith Prather, managing director at Armada Corporate Intelligence. Walmart has to cover the higher diesel price to ensure goods are on its shelves for consumers. “I don’t think diesel prices are going to snap back” if oil prices drop, Prather told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s a question of how long diesel prices stay up.” Intermodal moment Intermodal rail is likely to gain more business the longer fuel prices remain elevated. “A revisit with intermodal is needed to think about strategic road maps to transportation,” Vander Zanden said. “There are some real savings opportunities with intermodal.” The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI) shows why that’s the case. In March, the ISI intermodal contract rate, including fuel, was up 8 cents year over year at $1.65 per mile. At $2.34 per mile, the truckload contract rate was up 50 cents from a year ago. That all-inclusive truckload contract rate leapt 14.8% year over year, with higher fuel costs accounting for more than 1,000 basis points of the increase, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis. Sans fuel, the ISI truckload rate was up only 4.4% year over year. That’s a clear indication of how much shippers are really paying in higher fuel costs. Shifting freight to intermodal is part of an answer, but shippers need to find ways to rein in miles driven by their carriers as well, especially deadhead or empty miles. If fuel costs remain elevated for months, rather than weeks, shippers will face even more pressure to rethink transportation networks. Uber Freight says the number of shippers approaching the logistics provider for network optimization is rising fast. That’s especially true for companies that shrank their inventory in late 2025 and now face high replenishment costs. “There was a big push among many companies to reduce inventory in late 2025, with the expectation they could replenish in the first quarter,” Bob Daymon, head of client freight for Uber Freight, told the Journal of Commerce. “They’re finding costs are considerably higher than they expected,” Daymon said. Shippers have “drawn mental lines” based on how long the war in the Middle East and high fuel prices last, he said, adding: “I see the queue filling up with requests for network optimization.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

Rising fuel costs forcing US truck shippers to shift freight

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US imports rose to new record high for the second straight year in 2025, while exports continued to recover from post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023.</div>

US imports rose to new record high for the second straight year in 2025, while exports continued to recover from post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023.

The largest US shippers moved slightly less freight last year despite a slight increase in overall market demand, according to the 2026 Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers and Exporters rankings. Containerized imports to the US rose to a new record high for the second straight year in 2025 amid widespread frontloading linked to uncertainty surrounding tariffs and other US trade policies, such as a proposed fee on Chinese-built and -operated vessels. Against this backdrop, however, the Top 100 Importers saw their combined volumes slip an estimated 1.1% year over year. Total container imports inched up 0.7% to 28.16 million TEUs in 2025 after skyrocketing 16.6% to a then-record 27.98 million TEUs in 2024, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. On the export side, the disparity in growth rates was even greater, as outbound container volumes continued to recover from the post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023. Volumes among the Top 100 Exporters fell an estimated 4.5% for the full year, while total US exports grew 3.1% in 2025 following a 0.9% uptick in 2024. The annual container volumes of major importers and exporters are not publicly available, so the Top 100 rankings are the best approximation using analysis of PIERS data, confirmation of volumes with cargo owners, and limited modeling. Modeling factors include historical volumes, industry vertical growth and company revenue growth. The following rankings appear in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026. Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers in 2025 Annual containerized US imports, in laden TEUs Rank Importer TEUs Sector 1 Walmart 975,000 Retail 2 Home Depot 450,000 Retail 3 Target 400,000 Retail 4 Amazon 350,000 Retail 5 Dole Food 247,500 Foodstuffs 6 Lowe's 222,309 Retail 7 Chiquita Brands International 201,709 Foodstuffs 8 Ashley Furniture 200,710 Furniture 9 LG Group 168,404 Conglomerate 10 Dollar Tree 160,000 Retail 11 IKEA 125,368 Retail 12 Fresh Del Monte Produce 124,827 Foodstuffs 13 Hyundai Motor Company 119,805 Automotive goods 14 Ross Stores 101,500 Retail 15 Samsung America 100,000 Conglomerate 16 Sumitomo Corporation 99,708 Conglomerate 17 First Solar 85,651 Solar 18 GE Appliances, a Haier Company 83,000 Retail and household goods 19 Toyota Tsusho America 82,068 Automotive goods 20 General Motors 80,000 Automotive goods 21 Bob’s Discount Furniture 73,000 Household goods 22 Rooms to Go 62,800 Furniture 23 Electrolux 62,397 Electronics and household goods 24 Dollar General 59,006 Retail 25 Heineken USA 52,333 Alcoholic and beverages 26 SharkNinja Operating LLC 51,259 Household goods 27 Tractor Supply Company 49,000 Retail 28 John Deere 48,000 Heavy machinery 29 Sailun Tire Americas 47,432 Automotive goods 30 Newell Brands 45,000 Electronics 31 Costco Wholesale 44,548 Retail 32 Mercedes Benz USA 44,188 Automotive goods 33 Canadian Solar 44,017 Renewable energy 34 Yokohama Tire 43,302 Automotive goods 35 Hankook Tire America 41,517 Automotive goods 36 VF Corp. 41,000 Apparel and footwear 37 Kubota Tractor Company 40,688 Heavy machinery 38 Adidas Group 39,348 Apparel and footwear 39 Midea Group 38,963 Household goods 40 Goodyear Rubber & Tire 38,390 Automotive goods 41 ALDI 37,524 Retail 42 Continental Tire 36,484 Automotive goods 43 Q Cells 34,948 Solar 44 Toyo Tires 34,429 Automotive goods 45 TMALL 34,397 Retail 46 Dole Packaged Foods 33,000 Foodstuffs 47 Element Electronics 32,397 Electronics 48 Michelin North America 30,000 Automotive goods 49 Tesla 29,978 Automotive goods 50 Euromarket Designs 29,885 Retail 51 Hewlett-Packard 28,000 Electronics 52 Olam International 27,498 Cotton, spices and vegetables 53 Best Buy 27,000 Electronics 54 Dollarama L.P. 26,910 Retail 55 Mitsubishi Motors 26,552 Automotive goods 56 Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits 26,490 Foodstuffs 57 Ford Motor Company 25,140 Automotive goods 58 ABC Carpet and Home 25,012 Furniture 59 Dorel Industries 25,000 Conglomerate 60 Goya Foods 24,835 Foodstuffs 61 Bissell Homecare 24,500 Household goods 62 Bridgestone Tire 24,290 Automotive goods 63 Tatung Company of America 23,213 Electronics 64 Subaru of America 22800 Automotive goods 65 LKQ 22,482 Automotive goods 66 Fiji Water 22,332 Retail 67 EGA America Inc 22,226 Metals and recyclables 68 Kumho Tire 22,072 Automotive goods 69 Raymour & Flanigan 22,000 Retail 70 Curtis International 21,487 Electronics 71 CMPC Maderas 21,428 Paper product 72 Keter North America Inc 21,152 Storage 73 TTE Technology 20,856 Electronics 74 New Balance Athletics 20,202 Apparel and footwear 75 LollicupStore 20,164 Retail 76 Sentury Tire 19,910 Automotive goods 77 The Vita Coco Company 19,734 Foodstuffs 78 Sazerac 19,518 Alcoholic and beverages 79 Bechtel 19,390 Engineering and construction 80 American Furniture Warehouse 19,353 Furniture 81 Old Navy 19,005 Retail clothing 82 SanMar 18,964 Apparel and footwear 83 Yamaha Motor Corporation 18,581 Automotive goods 84 API Tires  18,521 Automotive goods 85 Conair LLC 18,291 Electronics 86 Sol Foods 18,116 Foodstuffs 87 Procter & Gamble 17,894 Conglomerate 88 Direct Pack 17,868 Packaging 89 Living Spaces Furniture 17,708 Furniture 90 Tireco 17,698 Automotive goods 91 ESWINDOWS 17,364 Glass manufacturer  92 Kawasaki 17,197 Powersports manufacturing 93 Loblaws 16,810 Retail 94 Runergy 16,483 Solar 95 Medical Depot 16,388 Medical devices 96 QVC 16,098 Retail 97 Danone Waters 16,022 Foodstuffs 98 Cozy Office 15,928 Furniture 99 FUYAO AUTOMOTIVE 15,776 Automotive goods 100 Schneider Electric 15,499 Electrical equipment Source: S&P Global © 2026 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Exporters in 2025 Annual containerized US exports, in laden TEUs Rank Exporter TEUs Sector 1 Koch Industries 215,280 Conglomerate 2 Dow Chemical 199,900 Chemicals 3 International Paper 156,000 Paper and packaging 4 DeLong 131,492 Animal Feed and Grain 5 ExxonMobil Chemical 130,159 Chemicals 6 America Chung Nam 110,913 Paper and plastics recyclables 7 Tricon Energy 110,000 Chemicals 8 Shintech 108,812 Chemicals 9 Ravago 107,855 Chemicals 10 WM Recycle America 106,952 Diversified recyclables 11 POET Nutrition 99,266 Animal Feed and Grain 12 Archer Daniels Midland  90,140 Foodstuffs 13 Newport CH International 86,363 Paper, metals and plastics recyclables 14 Scoular 83,456 Animal Feed and Grain 15 International Forest Products 82,300 Paper and recyclables 16 Sims Metal Management 78,501 Metal and electronics recyclables 17 JBS USA 76,286 Refrigerated meats and poultry 18 Viterra US 72,606 Agribusiness 19 Frey Commodities 72,182 Commodity trading 20 Cargill 68,000 Conglomerate 21 Winfibre 67,441 Paper and recyclables 22 The Anderson's Inc. 67,314 Agricultural goods 23 CellMark Group 66,984 Diversified 24 Louis Dreyfus Company 57,734 Cotton 25 CHS 55,554 Agriculture, energy and foodstuffs 26 Smurfit Westrock 53,633 Paper and packaging 27 Domtar 51,887 Paper and forest products 28 BMW of North America 50,256 Automotive goods 29 Tyson Foods 49,861 Refrigerated meats and poultry 30 Olam International 46,177 Cotton, spices and vegetables 31 Walmart 43,559 Retail 32 Montachem International 43,027 Plastics 33 Vipa Group 40,130 Paper and recyclables 34 Canusa Hershman Recycling 38,000 Diversified recyclables 35 PriceSmart 37,712 Membership warehouse club 36 Eastman Chemical 36,786 Chemicals, fibers and plastics 37 Staple Cotton 36,000 Cotton 38 Rayonier Advanced Materials 36,000 Chemicals and forest products 39 Cycle Link 35,803 Recycling  40 AJC International 35,740 Foodstuffs 41 Prairie Creek Grain 35,669 Plastics, rubber and chemicals 42 Celanese 33,500 Chemicals 43 Vinmar International LTD 31,955 Chemicals and plastics 44 Genesis Resource Enterprises 31,324 Paper and recyclables 45 KaMin 31,258 Minerals and clay 46 Almarai 31,032 Animal feed 47 Valero 30,598 Petrochemical products 48 International Feed 29,952 Agricultural goods 49 Smithfield Foods 29,340 Foodstuffs 50 U.S. Borax Inc. 29,000 Chemicals 51 Al Dahra ACX Inc. 26,702 Animal Feed and Grain 52 Mitsui & Co. 25,084 Conglomerate 53 Stone Arch Commodities 24,050 Animal Feed and Grain 54 Fornazor International 22,703 Animal feed 55 America Metal Export 21,892 Metals and recyclables 56 Chevron Phillips Chemical 21,633 Chemicals 57 Costco Wholesale 21,300 Retail 58 Gildan Activewear 21,046 Apparel and footwear 59 Seaboard Foods 20,811 Foodstuffs 60 Hawkeye Gold 20,341 Minerals 61 Global Cellulose Fibers 20,057 Paper and forest products 62 Michelin North America 20,000 Automotive goods 63 Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds 20,000 Food and beverage 64 Sappi North America 19,036 Paper and recyclables 65 Procter & Gamble 18,176 Consumer goods 66 DuPont 17,960 Diversified 67 Haykingdom 17,718 Agricultural goods 68 Potential Industries 17,635 Paper and recyclables 69 Fibre Trade 17,336 Paper and recyclables 70 Bayer CropScience 17,313 Agricultural goods 71 Ascend Performance Materials 17,166 Chemicals, fibers and plastics 72 Mercedes Benz USA 16,838 Automotive 73 Anheuser Busch InBev 15,679 Foodstuffs 74 Alco Iron and Metal 15,205 Metals and recyclables 75 Perdue 14,549 Foodstuffs 76 Central National Gottesman 14,508 Paper and forest products 77 Darling Ingredients 14,387 Consumer staples 78 Ekman Group 14,379 Paper and recyclables 79 ECOM USA 13,939 Commodity trading 80 GE Healthcare 13,689 Retail and household goods 81 Chemours 13,050 Chemicals 82 Healthy Green Life 12,584 Consumer goods 83 Nova Chemicals 12,508 Chemicals 84 Conveyco Technologies 12,293 Manufacture 85 Toyota Tsusho America 11,781 Automotive goods 86 Sysco 11,775 Foodstuffs 87 National Beef 11,773 Foodstuffs 88 Home Depot 11,614 Retail 89 Prosper International Trading 11,264 Paper and forest products 90 Caterpillar 11,250 Heavy machinery 91 John Deere 11,040 Industrial machinery 92 SA Recycling 10,860 Scrap metal recycling 93 Active Minerals International 9,674 Minerals 94 Sun International Produce 9,615 Food and beverage 95 Wheaton Grain 9,527 Agribusiness 96 Anderson Hay & Grain 9,285 Animal feed 97 Zen Trading 9,159 Animal Feed and Grain 98 Ford Motor Company 9,059 Automotive goods 99 Linden Trading Company 9,000 Recycling and commodities Trading 100 Border Valley Trading 8,889 Animal feed Source: S&P Global © 2026 S&P Global.

VPA veteran McCoy tapped as CEO of Port of Virginia

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

Recent Commentary

Canada must get serious about trade diversification

Container shipping’s ‘multilateral world’ under threat by US-driven strain

Top 5 Most Read Stories