Breakbulk pop up 640x340 (1) (1) 1.png

Event Pop Up

Supply chain

Events

Breakbulk News

Port News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Maritime

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can pick their own chassis when they arrange for truck transportation, but compliance with that ruling remains unclear. </div>

The agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can pick their own chassis when they arrange for truck transportation, but compliance with that ruling remains unclear.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is launching its second probe into chassis restrictions ocean carriers put on truckers when hauling a container. The probe comes after the agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can choose their own chassis when they contract with their own trucker. In a federal register notice Friday, the FMC said it plans to open a 60-day window for comments about “service contract terms or other means to mandate that motor carriers [truckers] and shippers use the ocean common carriers’ designated chassis.” The comments are sought in relation to an investigation by the FMC over allegations that “ocean common carriers may be in violation of the Shipping Act by unjustly and unreasonably restricting truckers and shippers from negotiating and dealing with chassis providers.”The investigation stems from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rules-for-truckers-in-chassis-dispute-with-ocean-carriers-5234355">the 2024 agency ruling</a> that ocean carriers have to stop mandating what specific chassis must be used under merchant haulage contracts. The agency upheld an administrative law judge’s earlier decision in a case between the American Trucking Association and the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocema-appeals-chassis-ruling-to-fmc-commissioners-5193253">container lines violate the Shipping Act when they restrict chassis choice</a> among shippers who are arranging their own container trucking. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-says-investigating-potential-violations-of-recent-ruling-on-chassis-control-5192272">The FMC was already investigating compliance</a> with a cease-and-desist order in the 2024 ruling, which is still ongoing. The new probe is looking for “any information concerning new or ongoing ocean common carrier practices ... to affect, restrict, or inhibit chassis provider selection,” the notice said. Part of the new probe involves whether ocean carriers designate single chassis providers at Chicago and Memphis rail ramps, if providers have enough chassis on-hand, any reimbursement for truckers on chassis split, and whether truckers are given notice about a container being under merchant or carrier haulage, the latter allowing an ocean carrier to choose a chassis. Along with the inland rail ramps, the FMC said its investigation is looking at chassis choice at the Savannah, Los Angeles, and Long Beach ports. As part of the probe into the Southern California market, the FMC is seeking how the “Pool of Pools” (PoP) operated by the three main chassis providers for the LA-LB ports distinguishes between “carrier haulage and merchant haulage containers and coordinate billing accordingly,” the notice said. OCEMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment into the new investigation.<h3>‘Sweetheart Deals’</h3>Robert Loya, chief executive of the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage providers in Southern California, told the Journal of Commerce that some shippers have merchant haulage contracts that include a chassis at no additional cost, requiring the trucker to use the ocean carrier’s designated chassis. But servicing the LA-LB ports with the trucker’s own chassis and one from the PoP can result in wasted miles and more costs, he added.Returning an empty container on a PoP chassis can require a trip back to the trucker’s own yard for a shipper without an ocean carrier-provisioned chassis. Truckers are also forced to pay gate fees that marine terminals charge for temporarily storing PoP chassis.“The intermodal equipment providers have negotiated sweetheart deals with the shipping lines to use their chassis, then that gets negotiated into the ocean contract with the beneficial cargo owner,” Loya said. “That puts pressure on us, so we’re forced by the lines to use their chassis. That’s the rub for us.”<h3>Chassis mis-mounts</h3>An executive of a Tennessee-based drayage provider told the Journal of Commerce that ocean carrier chassis pools at inland rail terminals are vulnerable to shortages in times of high demand, resulting in potential delays if a trucker cannot use their own chassis.Containers can also come off a train and be mis-mounted onto the wrong chassis, causing a trucker to wait for the correct chassis. The executive said that what appears to be a no-cost chassis can mean added costs and inefficiencies for truckers.“The trucker is squeezed,” she said. “The frustration is that there’s no change after years. The US would have been better served if we had chassis choice during the pandemic. We need a faster and more fluid way to move freight.”Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is launching its second probe into chassis restrictions ocean carriers put on truckers when hauling a container. The probe comes after the agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can choose their own chassis when they contract with their own trucker. In a federal register notice Friday, the FMC said it plans to open a 60-day window for comments about “service contract terms or other means to mandate that motor carriers [truckers] and shippers use the ocean common carriers’ designated chassis.” The comments are sought in relation to an investigation by the FMC over allegations that “ocean common carriers may be in violation of the Shipping Act by unjustly and unreasonably restricting truckers and shippers from negotiating and dealing with chassis providers.” The investigation stems from the 2024 agency ruling that ocean carriers have to stop mandating what specific chassis must be used under merchant haulage contracts. The agency upheld an administrative law judge’s earlier decision in a case between the American Trucking Association and the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) that container lines violate the Shipping Act when they restrict chassis choice among shippers who are arranging their own container trucking. The FMC was already investigating compliance with a cease-and-desist order in the 2024 ruling, which is still ongoing. The new probe is looking for “any information concerning new or ongoing ocean common carrier practices ... to affect, restrict, or inhibit chassis provider selection,” the notice said. Part of the new probe involves whether ocean carriers designate single chassis providers at Chicago and Memphis rail ramps, if providers have enough chassis on-hand, any reimbursement for truckers on chassis split, and whether truckers are given notice about a container being under merchant or carrier haulage, the latter allowing an ocean carrier to choose a chassis. Along with the inland rail ramps, the FMC said its investigation is looking at chassis choice at the Savannah, Los Angeles, and Long Beach ports. As part of the probe into the Southern California market, the FMC is seeking how the “Pool of Pools” (PoP) operated by the three main chassis providers for the LA-LB ports distinguishes between “carrier haulage and merchant haulage containers and coordinate billing accordingly,” the notice said. OCEMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment into the new investigation. ‘Sweetheart Deals’ Robert Loya, chief executive of the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage providers in Southern California, told the Journal of Commerce that some shippers have merchant haulage contracts that include a chassis at no additional cost, requiring the trucker to use the ocean carrier’s designated chassis. But servicing the LA-LB ports with the trucker’s own chassis and one from the PoP can result in wasted miles and more costs, he added. Returning an empty container on a PoP chassis can require a trip back to the trucker’s own yard for a shipper without an ocean carrier-provisioned chassis. Truckers are also forced to pay gate fees that marine terminals charge for temporarily storing PoP chassis. “The intermodal equipment providers have negotiated sweetheart deals with the shipping lines to use their chassis, then that gets negotiated into the ocean contract with the beneficial cargo owner,” Loya said. “That puts pressure on us, so we’re forced by the lines to use their chassis. That’s the rub for us.” Chassis mis-mounts An executive of a Tennessee-based drayage provider told the Journal of Commerce that ocean carrier chassis pools at inland rail terminals are vulnerable to shortages in times of high demand, resulting in potential delays if a trucker cannot use their own chassis. Containers can also come off a train and be mis-mounted onto the wrong chassis, causing a trucker to wait for the correct chassis. The executive said that what appears to be a no-cost chassis can mean added costs and inefficiencies for truckers. “The trucker is squeezed,” she said. “The frustration is that there’s no change after years. The US would have been better served if we had chassis choice during the pandemic. We need a faster and more fluid way to move freight.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Drayage

FMC takes second look at ocean carrier limits on chassis choice

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Transflo, which sells automation software to transportation providers, is using AI agents to identify specific exceptions common to LTL billing errors.</div>

Transflo, which sells automation software to transportation providers, is using AI agents to identify specific exceptions common to LTL billing errors.

<div class="phx-topic">Transflo, a provider of workflow software for freight transportation companies, has launched an invoice audit and resolution product for less-than-truckload (LTL) shipments, targeting error rates that touch nearly a third of shipments in that mode. The product is geared toward solving the interactions between LTL carriers and brokers that result in the manual management of exceptions on inaccurate freight bills by instead using automated invoice matching and validation. “We designed this solution to address the inherent complexity of LTL billing, reducing invoice resolution from days to minutes, accelerating payments, and delivering transparency for all parties,” Transflo CEO Renee Krug said in a statement Thursday. The product, called Workflow AI for LTL, is built around artificial intelligence (AI) agents trained to handle specific invoice exception types, as opposed to general purpose AI agents that are trained over time to automate a range of transportation processes. Ultimately, Transflo said, the goal is to make auditing teams 10 times more productive in handling additional invoices without adding headcount. The company estimates that 30% to 40% of LTL invoices are inaccurate. The new product is an example of so-called agentic AI overlapping with process automation in the freight transportation industry. A range of providers have sprung up in the last two years building AI agents, also called digital workers, to help brokers avoid adding headcount. Most of those companies are taking aim at workflow processes, from responding to shipper quote requests to automating appointment scheduling to invoice auditing, reconciling, and payment, such as Transflo’s product. The focus on LTL is also unique in that the majority of third-party automation software has been trained on the much larger and more fragmented truckload industry, leaving LTL brokers and carriers to largely develop their own internal solutions to automate processes. Because of the differences in pricing, quoting, and network operations between LTL and truckload, the technologies are rarely transferable. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Transflo, a provider of workflow software for freight transportation companies, has launched an invoice audit and resolution product for less-than-truckload (LTL) shipments, targeting error rates that touch nearly a third of shipments in that mode. The product is geared toward solving the interactions between LTL carriers and brokers that result in the manual management of exceptions on inaccurate freight bills by instead using automated invoice matching and validation. “We designed this solution to address the inherent complexity of LTL billing, reducing invoice resolution from days to minutes, accelerating payments, and delivering transparency for all parties,” Transflo CEO Renee Krug said in a statement Thursday. The product, called Workflow AI for LTL, is built around artificial intelligence (AI) agents trained to handle specific invoice exception types, as opposed to general purpose AI agents that are trained over time to automate a range of transportation processes. Ultimately, Transflo said, the goal is to make auditing teams 10 times more productive in handling additional invoices without adding headcount. The company estimates that 30% to 40% of LTL invoices are inaccurate. The new product is an example of so-called agentic AI overlapping with process automation in the freight transportation industry. A range of providers have sprung up in the last two years building AI agents, also called digital workers, to help brokers avoid adding headcount. Most of those companies are taking aim at workflow processes, from responding to shipper quote requests to automating appointment scheduling to invoice auditing, reconciling, and payment, such as Transflo’s product. The focus on LTL is also unique in that the majority of third-party automation software has been trained on the much larger and more fragmented truckload industry, leaving LTL brokers and carriers to largely develop their own internal solutions to automate processes. Because of the differences in pricing, quoting, and network operations between LTL and truckload, the technologies are rarely transferable. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Surface

Logistics Technology News

Software provider targets LTL invoice inaccuracies with automation solution

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Despite 2025 being shaped by geopolitics and trade upheaval, France’s largest container port of Le Havre was able to capitalize on significant investments to modernize its terminal infrastructure.</div>

Despite 2025 being shaped by geopolitics and trade upheaval, France’s largest container port of Le Havre was able to capitalize on significant investments to modernize its terminal infrastructure.

<div class="phx-topic">France’s Haropa Port, operator of the Northern Europe hub Le Havre, on Friday reported record container volumes for 2025, supported by huge investments into terminals partly owned by three of the world’s largest ocean carriers. Haropa Port comprises the ports of Le Havre, Rouen and Paris. Despite a year shaped by geopolitics and trade upheaval, container traffic at Haropa increased 4% in 2025, setting a record with more than 3.2 million TEUs handled during the year. Transhipment was up 2.4%, with hinterland traffic up 4% at 2.3 million TEUs. “The performance of the port will be strengthened in 2026 and 2027 and the coming years by the huge investment, led by the by the main terminal operators,” Kris Danaradjou, deputy CEO in charge of development at Haropa Port, told the Journal of Commerce. Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd were among the investors that committed €1.2 billion ($1.4 billion) to modernize Haropa’s infrastructure. Danaradjou said Haropa’s operations were shaped by “an extremely unpredictable” international environment, marked by the introduction of US tariffs, the reshuffling of carrier alliances and strategies, and the normalization of vessel routing via the Cape of Good Hope instead of the Suez Canal. <h3>Return to Red Sea could ‘challenge’ port </h3>Asked how Le Havre was preparing for a potential return of shipping to Suez and Red Sea transits and the congestion that shift was expected to bring, Danaradjou acknowledged it would be a challenge. “What will be the trickiest period is the transition when you have some vessels going through the Suez and others going around the Cape of Good Hope, and when you receive this kind of traffic in the same period, it could be a challenge,” he said. But Danaradjou said Le Havre had significant land available to terminals if they needed to clear their yards, and road, rail and barge options to move import containers to their inland destinations. “We are also a deep-water port so there is little waiting time, and we can move ships from the mooring area to the quay within an hour,” he said. Haropa Port has made multimodality a priority to improve decarbonization, the French port operator said in a statement. On the River Seine corridor that stretches from Le Havre to Paris, modal share of barge traffic grew from 19.7% in 2024 to 20.3% last year, in line with objectives set in Haropa’s 2020–25 strategic plan. River container traffic measured at the Paris terminals grew 1% after several record years, but rail container transport from Le Havre to the hinterland reached a record 145,000 TEUs last year, up 18%. Despite US tariffs on the European Union, trade between France and the US East Coast remained stable in 2025 with about 180,000 TEUs moved on the trans-Atlantic. The US is Haropa’s largest export market with about 30% of the cargo comprising wine and spirits, and the rest made up of commodities including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and dairy products. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

France’s Haropa Port, operator of the Northern Europe hub Le Havre, on Friday reported record container volumes for 2025, supported by huge investments into terminals partly owned by three of the world’s largest ocean carriers. Haropa Port comprises the ports of Le Havre, Rouen and Paris. Despite a year shaped by geopolitics and trade upheaval, container traffic at Haropa increased 4% in 2025, setting a record with more than 3.2 million TEUs handled during the year. Transhipment was up 2.4%, with hinterland traffic up 4% at 2.3 million TEUs. “The performance of the port will be strengthened in 2026 and 2027 and the coming years by the huge investment, led by the by the main terminal operators,” Kris Danaradjou, deputy CEO in charge of development at Haropa Port, told the Journal of Commerce. Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd were among the investors that committed €1.2 billion ($1.4 billion) to modernize Haropa’s infrastructure. Danaradjou said Haropa’s operations were shaped by “an extremely unpredictable” international environment, marked by the introduction of US tariffs, the reshuffling of carrier alliances and strategies, and the normalization of vessel routing via the Cape of Good Hope instead of the Suez Canal. Return to Red Sea could ‘challenge’ port Asked how Le Havre was preparing for a potential return of shipping to Suez and Red Sea transits and the congestion that shift was expected to bring, Danaradjou acknowledged it would be a challenge. “What will be the trickiest period is the transition when you have some vessels going through the Suez and others going around the Cape of Good Hope, and when you receive this kind of traffic in the same period, it could be a challenge,” he said. But Danaradjou said Le Havre had significant land available to terminals if they needed to clear their yards, and road, rail and barge options to move import containers to their inland destinations. “We are also a deep-water port so there is little waiting time, and we can move ships from the mooring area to the quay within an hour,” he said. Haropa Port has made multimodality a priority to improve decarbonization, the French port operator said in a statement. On the River Seine corridor that stretches from Le Havre to Paris, modal share of barge traffic grew from 19.7% in 2024 to 20.3% last year, in line with objectives set in Haropa’s 2020–25 strategic plan. River container traffic measured at the Paris terminals grew 1% after several record years, but rail container transport from Le Havre to the hinterland reached a record 145,000 TEUs last year, up 18%. Despite US tariffs on the European Union, trade between France and the US East Coast remained stable in 2025 with about 180,000 TEUs moved on the trans-Atlantic. The US is Haropa’s largest export market with about 30% of the cargo comprising wine and spirits, and the rest made up of commodities including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and dairy products. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

French port operator posts record volumes as carrier investments pay off 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The multimodal option is aimed at shippers wanting predictability in cross-border shipments and the ability to control costs.</div>

The multimodal option is aimed at shippers wanting predictability in cross-border shipments and the ability to control costs.

<div class="phx-topic">DHL Global Forwarding has launched a Truckair service between China and Turkey, with onward connections to points in Europe. The company this week said its Truckair multimodal service integrates air and road freight to move large-volume shipments, picking up cargo in China and transporting it by truck to Tashkent in Uzbekistan, then onward by air to Istanbul. From there, various modes are used to other European destinations. The service was launched two months ago, DHL said in a statement, with total transit time from China to Turkey at nine to 11 days. While that is longer than the typical four to seven days for all air freight, DHL cited the “cost-efficient” nature of its service. “Demand for agile and cost-efficient logistics solutions continues to rise, backed by sustained growth in China-Europe and broader Asia-Europe trade,” said Aditi Rasquinha, CEO of DHL Global Forwarding Greater China. The European Union was China’s second-largest trading partner in 2025, the company said, with bilateral trade up 5.4% year over year at $716 billion. DHL’s latest market update points to tight capacity and rate increases into Chinese New Year, with a demand peak expected in early February. The Truckair service is designed to help shippers avoid short-term volatility while maintaining predictable lead times. “Truckair was developed to meet this growing demand for greater flexibility and predictability in cross-border shipments, enabling businesses to control costs...,” Rasquinha said. Although costs vary from shipment to shipment, DHL maintains customers such as European retailers have reported savings of six-digit figures over the two months of using the multimodal service instead of all air freight. Still, shippers without time-to-market pressures continue to use the overland China-Europe rail network. In 2025, China-Europe freight trains made about 34,000 trips and carried 3.17 million TEUs, up 9.8% and 7.6% year over year, respectively, according to the China State Railway Group, which manages the network. Freight volume on the New Western Land-Sea Corridor, an initiative that began in 2017 to encourage development in China’s western regions, shot up 47.5% to 1.42 million TEUs in 2025, China State Railway Group said in a statement. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.   </div>

DHL Global Forwarding has launched a Truckair service between China and Turkey, with onward connections to points in Europe. The company this week said its Truckair multimodal service integrates air and road freight to move large-volume shipments, picking up cargo in China and transporting it by truck to Tashkent in Uzbekistan, then onward by air to Istanbul. From there, various modes are used to other European destinations. The service was launched two months ago, DHL said in a statement, with total transit time from China to Turkey at nine to 11 days. While that is longer than the typical four to seven days for all air freight, DHL cited the “cost-efficient” nature of its service. “Demand for agile and cost-efficient logistics solutions continues to rise, backed by sustained growth in China-Europe and broader Asia-Europe trade,” said Aditi Rasquinha, CEO of DHL Global Forwarding Greater China. The European Union was China’s second-largest trading partner in 2025, the company said, with bilateral trade up 5.4% year over year at $716 billion. DHL’s latest market update points to tight capacity and rate increases into Chinese New Year, with a demand peak expected in early February. The Truckair service is designed to help shippers avoid short-term volatility while maintaining predictable lead times. “Truckair was developed to meet this growing demand for greater flexibility and predictability in cross-border shipments, enabling businesses to control costs...,” Rasquinha said. Although costs vary from shipment to shipment, DHL maintains customers such as European retailers have reported savings of six-digit figures over the two months of using the multimodal service instead of all air freight. Still, shippers without time-to-market pressures continue to use the overland China-Europe rail network. In 2025, China-Europe freight trains made about 34,000 trips and carried 3.17 million TEUs, up 9.8% and 7.6% year over year, respectively, according to the China State Railway Group, which manages the network. Freight volume on the New Western Land-Sea Corridor, an initiative that began in 2017 to encourage development in China’s western regions, shot up 47.5% to 1.42 million TEUs in 2025, China State Railway Group said in a statement. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com .   

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo

DHL launches road-air service on busy China-Europe trade lane 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As the diversions away from the Suez Canal have shown over the past two years, global shipping is often at the mercy of global hotspots, writes Ted Prince.</div>

As the diversions away from the Suez Canal have shown over the past two years, global shipping is often at the mercy of global hotspots, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Political science has been front of mind for many of us in the international maritime transportation industry as trade deals become enmeshed in tariffs and other policy matters. While the trans-Pacific remains the primary route for Asia-to-US West Coast cargo, the question of routing alternatives is at an all-time high. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6157386_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Starting in 2023, military activity by Houthi militants in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden targeted commercial vessels and created a direct challenge to Suez Canal transits. This route from Asia to the US East Coast had seen significant growth with the deployment of mega-vessels within alliances utilizing slow steaming. Twenty years ago, conventional wisdom established Singapore as the fulcrum for east-west deployment. It was hard to imagine that Suez services would start in China; however, that is what happened. The Houthi threat resulted in most carriers rerouting from the Suez Canal to the Cape of Good Hope around southern Africa. This added up to two weeks in transit and resulted in almost all spare capacity being absorbed. While there has been some discussion of Suez transits resuming, the political instability in Iran has caused some hesitation because of the knock-on risks to crew and cargo. The Suez route now has a theoretical challenge from the Northern Sea Route — which is estimated to be 20% to 40% shorter than the Suez. It could reduce transit time by weeks but still has significant seasonality concerns. Even summer and autumn transits require icebreaker escorts, although navigability is increasing with Arctic warming. Donald Trump’s focus on Greenland has certainly raised the stakes here. Likewise, with the Panama Canal. In his Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address, Trump stated his intention to “take back” the Panama Canal, especially from alleged Chinese port control. That political pressure no doubt helped push CK Hutchison to arrange the sale of its extensive marine terminal portfolio to a consortium led by US investors (BlackRock/Global Infrastructure Partners, along with Mediterranean Shipping Co./Terminal Investment Limited) less than two months later for approximately $22.8 billion. Since then, political contention between the US, Panama and China has complicated the deal, so its status remains unresolved at present. <h3>Costly alternatives </h3>Among these “canal conundrums,” there is no shortage of ideas seeking to provide alternative routings: 1) The Kra (or Thai) Canal, a waterway across Thailand’s Kra Isthmus, connecting the Gulf of Thailand (Pacific Ocean) to the Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean), has been under consideration, literally for centuries. It would be bypassing the Strait of Malacca to shorten shipping routes between East Asia and the Suez Canal. 2) A canal transiting Nicaragua (Nicaragua Canal or Grand Oceanic Canal) has been considered for almost as long (as early as 1825). Both have been considered within the scope of China’s Belt and Road initiative; however, astronomical costs along with political and environmental hurdles make these likely to remain on the drawing board for some time. Finally, intermodal options have been proposed across southern Mexico (The Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec); Honduras (National Interoceanic Railway); and Nicaragua (Canal Interoceanico de Nicaragua). These also present multi-billion price tags and seek to replicate what already exists with the Panama Canal Railroad — which is owned by APM Terminals. There is no question that we live in increasingly turbulent political times. However, for the time being, it seems that we will continue to live in a world where the three main vessel routing alternatives will remain in place. 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>

Political science has been front of mind for many of us in the international maritime transportation industry as trade deals become enmeshed in tariffs and other policy matters. While the trans-Pacific remains the primary route for Asia-to-US West Coast cargo, the question of routing alternatives is at an all-time high. Starting in 2023, military activity by Houthi militants in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden targeted commercial vessels and created a direct challenge to Suez Canal transits. This route from Asia to the US East Coast had seen significant growth with the deployment of mega-vessels within alliances utilizing slow steaming. Twenty years ago, conventional wisdom established Singapore as the fulcrum for east-west deployment. It was hard to imagine that Suez services would start in China; however, that is what happened. The Houthi threat resulted in most carriers rerouting from the Suez Canal to the Cape of Good Hope around southern Africa. This added up to two weeks in transit and resulted in almost all spare capacity being absorbed. While there has been some discussion of Suez transits resuming, the political instability in Iran has caused some hesitation because of the knock-on risks to crew and cargo. The Suez route now has a theoretical challenge from the Northern Sea Route — which is estimated to be 20% to 40% shorter than the Suez. It could reduce transit time by weeks but still has significant seasonality concerns. Even summer and autumn transits require icebreaker escorts, although navigability is increasing with Arctic warming. Donald Trump’s focus on Greenland has certainly raised the stakes here. Likewise, with the Panama Canal. In his Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address, Trump stated his intention to “take back” the Panama Canal, especially from alleged Chinese port control. That political pressure no doubt helped push CK Hutchison to arrange the sale of its extensive marine terminal portfolio to a consortium led by US investors (BlackRock/Global Infrastructure Partners, along with Mediterranean Shipping Co./Terminal Investment Limited) less than two months later for approximately $22.8 billion. Since then, political contention between the US, Panama and China has complicated the deal, so its status remains unresolved at present. Costly alternatives Among these “canal conundrums,” there is no shortage of ideas seeking to provide alternative routings: 1) The Kra (or Thai) Canal, a waterway across Thailand’s Kra Isthmus, connecting the Gulf of Thailand (Pacific Ocean) to the Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean), has been under consideration, literally for centuries. It would be bypassing the Strait of Malacca to shorten shipping routes between East Asia and the Suez Canal. 2) A canal transiting Nicaragua (Nicaragua Canal or Grand Oceanic Canal) has been considered for almost as long (as early as 1825). Both have been considered within the scope of China’s Belt and Road initiative; however, astronomical costs along with political and environmental hurdles make these likely to remain on the drawing board for some time. Finally, intermodal options have been proposed across southern Mexico (The Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec); Honduras (National Interoceanic Railway); and Nicaragua (Canal Interoceanico de Nicaragua). These also present multi-billion price tags and seek to replicate what already exists with the Panama Canal Railroad — which is owned by APM Terminals. There is no question that we live in increasingly turbulent political times. However, for the time being, it seems that we will continue to live in a world where the three main vessel routing alternatives will remain in place. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Geopolitical risks prompt thoughts of supply chain routing alternatives

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Expansion of two container terminals and construction of a new 200-acre facility to be called Pier 500 will help the port retain its position as the largest US gateway, Executive Director Gene Seroka said in his State of the Port address Thursday.</div>

Expansion of two container terminals and construction of a new 200-acre facility to be called Pier 500 will help the port retain its position as the largest US gateway, Executive Director Gene Seroka said in his State of the Port address Thursday.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Los Angeles will expand two existing container terminals and develop an 89-acre chassis operations facility, it announced Thursday. That is in addition to building a new 200-acre container terminal, a project that was announced last year. In order to retain its position as the largest US container port and accommodate growth, Los Angeles must expand its infrastructure and enable port stakeholders to operate more efficiently using technology, Gene Seroka, the port’s executive director, said in his State of the Port address. “We must build bigger and we must build smarter: bigger capacity, smarter technology, increased sustainability,” Seroka said. The terminal expansion projects include development of a 40-acre site adjacent to Pier 300 and upgrading the LA Til container terminal in the port’s West Basin. The port also plans to develop 80 acres of under-utilized land on Terminal Island into a maritime support facility for chassis parking and maintenance as well as for container pickups and dropoffs, Seroka said. The port last October released a request for proposals to evaluate the interest in and feasibility of constructing a 200-acre facility to be called the Pier 500 Marine Container Terminal, which would include 3,000 linear feet of wharf space and two berths. Pier 500, to be developed on landfill, would be the first new container terminal built in Los Angeles in a generation, Seroka said. The project is projected to be completed in 10 years once construction begins. That is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/port-of-los-angeles-looks-to-handle-future-growth-with-new-terminal-project-6091694">faster than most new terminals built on landfill</a> because over the past 20 years, rocks removed during other construction projects have been dumped on the 124-acre landfill site, raising it to about 15 feet below the water line. Seroka said the port is in final discussions with Fenix Maritime Services, which operates Pier 300, to develop 40 acres of vacant land adjacent to the 300-acre terminal. The plan would be to add another berth and develop the site for terminal-related operations. Los Angeles will soon be issuing an environmental impact report for the LA Til Container Terminal to upgrade the wharf and rail yard to accommodate larger container ships, Seroka said. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex is operating at about 60% capacity utilization, which is a far cry <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/more-data-sharing-crucial-to-avoiding-future-port-congestion-officials-6135162">from the 90%-plus utilization rate</a> during the post-pandemic cargo surge that resulted in vessel backlogs and marine terminal congestion. However, with a projected doubling of container volumes in the port complex by 2040, the expansion projects should ensure that Los Angeles is well-positioned to handle future growth as well as the next generation of container vessels, Seroka said in his address. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d8f25580-ea17-41e6-be9c-497d1aa8fba5"></dynamic-object></div>Los Angeles last year handled 10.2 million TEUs of laden and empty containers, which was its third-busiest year, he said. The port handled 4.86 million TEUs of container imports from Asia last year, down 0.7% from 2024 but still the most among all US ports, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Long Beach was second with 4.56 million TEUs. <h3>Building a new bridge still possible </h3>Meanwhile, re-decking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at the entry to the Port of Los Angeles, which will begin in the coming months, will make the bridge safer for the 50,000 vehicles that cross it daily, Seroka said. “But here’s the bigger issue. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-wants-california-to-raise-bridge-to-accommodate-big-ships-6087396">We also need to raise or replace it to unlock our full terminal capacity north of the bridge</a>. We pushed to do both together,” he said. “That timeline simply didn’t work, but this issue is not going away. We’re working with the governor’s office and California transportation officials to explore all options — which could include building a new crossing.” The port continues to expand and improve its technology-driven programs, including the Port Optimizer to project container volumes in a three-week window, and the Universal Truck Appointment System which has improved gate usage at marine terminals by 20%, Seroka said. “Building smarter also means investing in technology that powers everything we do,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Port of Los Angeles will expand two existing container terminals and develop an 89-acre chassis operations facility, it announced Thursday. That is in addition to building a new 200-acre container terminal, a project that was announced last year. In order to retain its position as the largest US container port and accommodate growth, Los Angeles must expand its infrastructure and enable port stakeholders to operate more efficiently using technology, Gene Seroka, the port’s executive director, said in his State of the Port address. “We must build bigger and we must build smarter: bigger capacity, smarter technology, increased sustainability,” Seroka said. The terminal expansion projects include development of a 40-acre site adjacent to Pier 300 and upgrading the LA Til container terminal in the port’s West Basin. The port also plans to develop 80 acres of under-utilized land on Terminal Island into a maritime support facility for chassis parking and maintenance as well as for container pickups and dropoffs, Seroka said. The port last October released a request for proposals to evaluate the interest in and feasibility of constructing a 200-acre facility to be called the Pier 500 Marine Container Terminal, which would include 3,000 linear feet of wharf space and two berths. Pier 500, to be developed on landfill, would be the first new container terminal built in Los Angeles in a generation, Seroka said. The project is projected to be completed in 10 years once construction begins. That is faster than most new terminals built on landfill because over the past 20 years, rocks removed during other construction projects have been dumped on the 124-acre landfill site, raising it to about 15 feet below the water line. Seroka said the port is in final discussions with Fenix Maritime Services, which operates Pier 300, to develop 40 acres of vacant land adjacent to the 300-acre terminal. The plan would be to add another berth and develop the site for terminal-related operations. Los Angeles will soon be issuing an environmental impact report for the LA Til Container Terminal to upgrade the wharf and rail yard to accommodate larger container ships, Seroka said. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex is operating at about 60% capacity utilization, which is a far cry from the 90%-plus utilization rate during the post-pandemic cargo surge that resulted in vessel backlogs and marine terminal congestion. However, with a projected doubling of container volumes in the port complex by 2040, the expansion projects should ensure that Los Angeles is well-positioned to handle future growth as well as the next generation of container vessels, Seroka said in his address. Los Angeles last year handled 10.2 million TEUs of laden and empty containers, which was its third-busiest year, he said. The port handled 4.86 million TEUs of container imports from Asia last year, down 0.7% from 2024 but still the most among all US ports, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Long Beach was second with 4.56 million TEUs. Building a new bridge still possible Meanwhile, re-decking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at the entry to the Port of Los Angeles, which will begin in the coming months, will make the bridge safer for the 50,000 vehicles that cross it daily, Seroka said. “But here’s the bigger issue. We also need to raise or replace it to unlock our full terminal capacity north of the bridge . We pushed to do both together,” he said. “That timeline simply didn’t work, but this issue is not going away. We’re working with the governor’s office and California transportation officials to explore all options — which could include building a new crossing.” The port continues to expand and improve its technology-driven programs, including the Port Optimizer to project container volumes in a three-week window, and the Universal Truck Appointment System which has improved gate usage at marine terminals by 20%, Seroka said. “Building smarter also means investing in technology that powers everything we do,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Port of Los Angeles forging ahead with aggressive construction program 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.</div>

The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. <h3>Capacity </h3>I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. <h3>Demand </h3>Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. <h3>Recommendation </h3>What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. Capacity I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. Demand Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. Recommendation What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight recession, but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components, writes Ted Prince.</div>

There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight recession, but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">In 1948, Gerald Hern, sports editor of the Boston Post, composed a brief poem describing the Boston Braves’ pitching en route to the 1948 National League pennant: First we’ll use Spahn then we’ll use Sain Then an off day, followed by rain Back will come Spahn, followed by Sain And followed, we hope, by two days of rain Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were responsible for 39 of the Braves’ 91 victories that year. However, it was common to have a one-two punch at the top of a team’s pitching rotation. Intermodal has a similar duality: international and domestic — primarily dry 40- and 53-foot containers, respectively. While intermodal has a plethora of markets and equipment, the two segments have been carrying the industry for decades to constant new heights. They are also closely correlated in that a great deal of the domestic market is import cargo that was transloaded on the West Coast for movement inland. Hern’s work comes to mind when thinking about intermodal’s performance in 2025 and its prospects for 2026. Unlike the hoped-for two days of good rain, the industry has endured four years of painful rain since the halcyon volumes of 2021, the “good old days” of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight “recession,” but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components. As a result, intermodal has frequently found itself as a surface freight alternative that is slower and more expensive than trucking. And while there were some green shoots in 2024, the industry has been hoping for a second-half recovery — that has failed to materialize — in each of the past three years. The same seems true for 2026. <h3>Supply and demand drivers </h3>As we look forward, we need to consider supply and demand drivers. “Affordability” has taken the place of prominence in our political lexicon. As the costs of food and housing rise, discretionary income for other consumer products has shriveled and reduced demand. The same goes for increasing credit card, car, and student loan debt. Regardless of mortgage rates, there are long-term limitations on housing starts. This can further reduce consumer demand because so many purchases — e.g., furniture, home, electronics, etc. — are often associated with new homes. And although seven-year car loans have become more common, I don’t believe 50-year home mortgages will have the same penetration. With demand problematic, intermodal success will probably rely on supply changes. Many contend that the demand during the early days of COVID-19 created excess capacity that the truck market is still trying to absorb. However, it is unclear whether there was really an increase in overall capacity, or just realignment as many truckers decided to go out on their own. Regardless, there were a number of carriers that acquired capacity at historically high prices and must keep operating to just make their payments. The normal culling of unprofitable capacity was precluded by this inability to exit the market, ensuring a never-ending supply of zombie truckers. This capacity is getting older and more expensive to operate. Nevertheless, there is a feeling (or hope?) that 2026 will finally see marginal carriers leave the market and rate stability restored. <h3>Enhanced regulatory oversight </h3>The environmental green benefits of intermodal are not a priority for the current administration, so economic green will be paramount. Most likely that would come from increased regulatory oversight. Enhanced enforcement on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is reducing driver supply. And there is still the unknown of hacked electronic logging devices allowing for illegal hours of service. What is unclear is whether these initiatives will impact truckload and drayage carriers equally, or whether one segment will suffer disproportionate opprobrium. If it is the former, intermodal will be advantaged; however, if it is the latter, maybe not. The former would be a rising tide that would raise all intermodal ships, whereas the latter could see the further ascendance of bimodal operations with integrated drayage overseen by robust safety regimens. In an attempt to increase demand, we can expect major players to assume prominent roles. Railroads and bimodals will seek to deploy equipment that has been stored for years. Ocean carriers will continue to consider their inland options. Finally, ports may become more involved as they explore inland options to attract more discretionary cargo. There are no historical comparisons for the last five years. It is unclear when the market will turn, but when it does, the recovery will follow Ernest Hemingway’s description: “Gradually, then suddenly.” We can then hope for the sun also to rise on intermodal. 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>

In 1948, Gerald Hern, sports editor of the Boston Post, composed a brief poem describing the Boston Braves’ pitching en route to the 1948 National League pennant: First we’ll use Spahn then we’ll use Sain Then an off day, followed by rain Back will come Spahn, followed by Sain And followed, we hope, by two days of rain Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were responsible for 39 of the Braves’ 91 victories that year. However, it was common to have a one-two punch at the top of a team’s pitching rotation. Intermodal has a similar duality: international and domestic — primarily dry 40- and 53-foot containers, respectively. While intermodal has a plethora of markets and equipment, the two segments have been carrying the industry for decades to constant new heights. They are also closely correlated in that a great deal of the domestic market is import cargo that was transloaded on the West Coast for movement inland. Hern’s work comes to mind when thinking about intermodal’s performance in 2025 and its prospects for 2026. Unlike the hoped-for two days of good rain, the industry has endured four years of painful rain since the halcyon volumes of 2021, the “good old days” of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight “recession,” but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components. As a result, intermodal has frequently found itself as a surface freight alternative that is slower and more expensive than trucking. And while there were some green shoots in 2024, the industry has been hoping for a second-half recovery — that has failed to materialize — in each of the past three years. The same seems true for 2026. Supply and demand drivers As we look forward, we need to consider supply and demand drivers. “Affordability” has taken the place of prominence in our political lexicon. As the costs of food and housing rise, discretionary income for other consumer products has shriveled and reduced demand. The same goes for increasing credit card, car, and student loan debt. Regardless of mortgage rates, there are long-term limitations on housing starts. This can further reduce consumer demand because so many purchases — e.g., furniture, home, electronics, etc. — are often associated with new homes. And although seven-year car loans have become more common, I don’t believe 50-year home mortgages will have the same penetration. With demand problematic, intermodal success will probably rely on supply changes. Many contend that the demand during the early days of COVID-19 created excess capacity that the truck market is still trying to absorb. However, it is unclear whether there was really an increase in overall capacity, or just realignment as many truckers decided to go out on their own. Regardless, there were a number of carriers that acquired capacity at historically high prices and must keep operating to just make their payments. The normal culling of unprofitable capacity was precluded by this inability to exit the market, ensuring a never-ending supply of zombie truckers. This capacity is getting older and more expensive to operate. Nevertheless, there is a feeling (or hope?) that 2026 will finally see marginal carriers leave the market and rate stability restored. Enhanced regulatory oversight The environmental green benefits of intermodal are not a priority for the current administration, so economic green will be paramount. Most likely that would come from increased regulatory oversight. Enhanced enforcement on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is reducing driver supply. And there is still the unknown of hacked electronic logging devices allowing for illegal hours of service. What is unclear is whether these initiatives will impact truckload and drayage carriers equally, or whether one segment will suffer disproportionate opprobrium. If it is the former, intermodal will be advantaged; however, if it is the latter, maybe not. The former would be a rising tide that would raise all intermodal ships, whereas the latter could see the further ascendance of bimodal operations with integrated drayage overseen by robust safety regimens. In an attempt to increase demand, we can expect major players to assume prominent roles. Railroads and bimodals will seek to deploy equipment that has been stored for years. Ocean carriers will continue to consider their inland options. Finally, ports may become more involved as they explore inland options to attract more discretionary cargo. There are no historical comparisons for the last five years. It is unclear when the market will turn, but when it does, the recovery will follow Ernest Hemingway’s description: “Gradually, then suddenly.” We can then hope for the sun also to rise on intermodal. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Pace of freight market recovery a matter of ‘gradually, then suddenly’

Notes: Data as of October 2025
Shaded areas indicate forecasts

MPV delivered

MPV demolished

HL capable delivered

HL capable demolished 

Net fleet loss/gain

The S&P Global multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet capacity database aggregates data for vessels that are in service, on order or have been demolished. The *Journal of Commerce* uses this database of current and historical data to forecast future newbuildings and demolitions.

Multipurpose and heavy-lift vessel deliveries and demolitions, with forecast  

MPV and HL Capable Fleet development Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Citing “the complex and uncertain international context,” the carrier said proforma voyages through the Suez that were confirmed last month would remain diverted via the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa.</div>

Citing “the complex and uncertain international context,” the carrier said proforma voyages through the Suez that were confirmed last month would remain diverted via the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM on Tuesday said it would scale back plans to reroute three Asia-Europe westbound services through the Red Sea and Suez that were announced just last month. The carrier’s about-face is a glaring example of the delicate balancing act facing liners as they chart a return to transits through the Red Sea while also acknowledging that the returns may be short-lived. The move comes as Maersk <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-set-to-resume-regular-suez-transits-on-india-usec-mecl-loop-sources-6152441">last week announced its scheduled MECL service</a> from India to the US East Coast would resume Suez sailings from Jan. 26. Citing “the complex and uncertain international context,” CMA CGM said in a statement that proforma voyages through the Suez that were confirmed last month on Asia-Europe would remain diverted via the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. “The CMA CGM Group has decided for the time being to reroute vessels deployed on our FAL 1, FAL 3 and MEX services via the Cape of Good Hope,” the carrier said in a statement, adding that the Suez situation would be regularly reviewed.   For carriers, the risks to crew and brand that come with a Suez/Red Sea return are high — despite Houthi rebels announcing in November that ship attacks would end — on top of the additional costs of diverting vessels should attacks resume.  There’s also the commercial concern of staying competitive with Suez transits offering up to 10-day shorter transits from Asia to Europe, and the larger risk of released capacity that would put immense downward pressure on rates. Carriers also must weigh the willingness of shippers and insurers to allow cargo to return to a potentially volatile route. “A hybrid routing is going to be the prevailing mode for this year, whereby carriers are going to start with more backhaul and lower-value cargo in Suez transits but keep on using the Cape of Good Hope for the higher-value head-haul voyages,” Simon Heaney, senior manager of container research at Drewry, told a webinar hosted by the maritime consultant Tuesday. “This is going to mean that more effective capacity will be drip fed back into the market over the course of the year and won’t happen all at once,” he added. “It will give carriers more time to assess the risk-reward position, prepare their future networks and prevent a total collapse in pricing.” Still, Heaney warned that overcapacity in the market would bring down rates, “regardless of how quickly Suez transits resume.” It was a position supported by transport analysts at HSBC, who said in a market update Tuesday that a swift return to Suez could cause a short-term increase in rates, but prices would decline through 2026. “Spot freight rates could fall significantly and also weigh on this year’s trans-Pacific [service contract talks] in April and May,” HSBC said. <h3>Some scheduled services take shorter route </h3>Ocean carriers have been increasing their transits via the Suez and Red Sea recently, encouraged by the absence of Houthi attacks that began in late 2023 and forced lengthy diversions around southern Africa.   The working approach so far, led by CMA CGM and with Maersk and other carriers starting to follow, has been to route India-US services through the Suez. CMA CGM is operating its service from India to the US via the Suez and Maersk will resume sailings for its MECL (India, Middle East-US East Coast) service via the Red Sea and Suez Canal from Jan. 26. The Ocean Alliance has scheduled all eastbound legs of its NEU4 Asia-Europe service from January and its MED2 Asia-Mediterranean service from February via the Suez. Getting shippers onboard will be a crucial part of the Suez-return puzzle. Some shippers tell the Journal of Commerce that directives from their C-suites prevent them from considering Suez voyages despite the better transit time. Other cargo owners, such as the supply chain director for a Europe-based shipper, have no problem using the Egyptian waterway.“Our global insurance policy isn’t significantly affected by shipping through the Red Sea, so if the services are there and the cost makes sense, then there wouldn’t be much stopping us from using them,” the source said. “But it all seems very tentative,” he added. “I think what we’re seeing is the tension between carriers wanting to attract cargo by offering a diverse mix of transit times, and a fear of crashing the market or a return to bunching at the ports in Asia and Europe.” Drewry noted that insurance costs were less of an impediment, with premiums expressed as a percentage of the vessel hull value currently about 0.2% or 0.3%, down from a high of 1% in the two years since the Red Sea attacks began. <h3>Two-route voyage schedule </h3>Drewry’s expectations of a two-route Suez-Africa voyage schedule this year reflected the cautious approach from carriers and alliances, as well as shippers that want to avoid valuable cargo being put at risk while factoring into contracts any resumption of the shorter route.“We know that depending on the direction of the voyage and the size of the ship, the multiple of the goods value versus the ship value can range from five to 10 times,” Heaney told the webinar.   Most of the Asia-Europe annual contracting has been completed for the year, with shippers and forwarders telling the Journal of Commerce that a return to the Suez has been factored in. “We have built some flex into our negotiations on these lanes this year that allows for a renegotiation in case there is a sudden rush back to the Red Sea route,” the head of logistics at a European retailer said. It was an approach supported by Philip Damas, managing director of Drewry Shipping Consultants, who said low rates were a given through 2026 while shippers were asking for two rates — one for current transits via the Cape and one for the Suez.  “That option makes it easier to later effectively apply the relevant rates,” Damas told the Drewry webinar. “Another option is to negotiate based on the Cape routing and have a specific review clause that when the Suez Canal transits resume fully, there will be a renegotiation. Having that clause up front is probably easier.”  Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.   </div>

CMA CGM on Tuesday said it would scale back plans to reroute three Asia-Europe westbound services through the Red Sea and Suez that were announced just last month. The carrier’s about-face is a glaring example of the delicate balancing act facing liners as they chart a return to transits through the Red Sea while also acknowledging that the returns may be short-lived.  The move comes as Maersk last week announced its scheduled MECL service from India to the US East Coast would resume Suez sailings from Jan. 26.  Citing “the complex and uncertain international context,” CMA CGM said in a statement that proforma voyages through the Suez that were confirmed last month on Asia-Europe would remain diverted via the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa.  “The CMA CGM Group has decided for the time being to reroute vessels deployed on our FAL 1, FAL 3 and MEX services via the Cape of Good Hope,” the carrier said in a statement, adding that the Suez situation would be regularly reviewed.    For carriers, the risks to crew and brand that come with a Suez/Red Sea return are high — despite Houthi rebels announcing in November that ship attacks would end — on top of the additional costs of diverting vessels should attacks resume.   There’s also the commercial concern of staying competitive with Suez transits offering up to 10-day shorter transits from Asia to Europe, and the larger risk of released capacity that would put immense downward pressure on rates. Carriers also must weigh the willingness of shippers and insurers to allow cargo to return to a potentially volatile route.  “A hybrid routing is going to be the prevailing mode for this year, whereby carriers are going to start with more backhaul and lower-value cargo in Suez transits but keep on using the Cape of Good Hope for the higher-value head-haul voyages,” Simon Heaney, senior manager of container research at Drewry, told a webinar hosted by the maritime consultant Tuesday.  “This is going to mean that more effective capacity will be drip fed back into the market over the course of the year and won’t happen all at once,” he added. “It will give carriers more time to assess the risk-reward position, prepare their future networks and prevent a total collapse in pricing.”  Still, Heaney warned that overcapacity in the market would bring down rates, “regardless of how quickly Suez transits resume.”  It was a position supported by transport analysts at HSBC, who said in a market update Tuesday that a swift return to Suez could cause a short-term increase in rates, but prices would decline through 2026.  “Spot freight rates could fall significantly and also weigh on this year’s trans-Pacific [service contract talks] in April and May,” HSBC said.  Some scheduled services take shorter route  Ocean carriers have been increasing their transits via the Suez and Red Sea recently, encouraged by the absence of Houthi attacks that began in late 2023 and forced lengthy diversions around southern Africa.   The working approach so far, led by CMA CGM and with Maersk and other carriers starting to follow, has been to route India-US services through the Suez. CMA CGM is operating its service from India to the US via the Suez and Maersk will resume sailings for its MECL (India, Middle East-US East Coast) service via the Red Sea and Suez Canal from Jan. 26.  The Ocean Alliance has scheduled all eastbound legs of its NEU4 Asia-Europe service from January and its MED2 Asia-Mediterranean service from February via the Suez.  Getting shippers onboard will be a crucial part of the Suez-return puzzle. Some shippers tell the Journal of Commerce that directives from their C-suites prevent them from considering Suez voyages despite the better transit time. Other cargo owners, such as the supply chain director for a Europe-based shipper, have no problem using the Egyptian waterway. “Our global insurance policy isn’t significantly affected by shipping through the Red Sea, so if the services are there and the cost makes sense, then there wouldn’t be much stopping us from using them,” the source said.  “But it all seems very tentative,” he added. “I think what we’re seeing is the tension between carriers wanting to attract cargo by offering a diverse mix of transit times, and a fear of crashing the market or a return to bunching at the ports in Asia and Europe.”  Drewry noted that insurance costs were less of an impediment, with premiums expressed as a percentage of the vessel hull value currently about 0.2% or 0.3%, down from a high of 1% in the two years since the Red Sea attacks began.  Two-route voyage schedule  Drewry’s expectations of a two-route Suez-Africa voyage schedule this year reflected the cautious approach from carriers and alliances, as well as shippers that want to avoid valuable cargo being put at risk while factoring into contracts any resumption of the shorter route. “We know that depending on the direction of the voyage and the size of the ship, the multiple of the goods value versus the ship value can range from five to 10 times,” Heaney told the webinar.    Most of the Asia-Europe annual contracting has been completed for the year, with shippers and forwarders telling the Journal of Commerce that a return to the Suez has been factored in.  “We have built some flex into our negotiations on these lanes this year that allows for a renegotiation in case there is a sudden rush back to the Red Sea route,” the head of logistics at a European retailer said.  It was an approach supported by Philip Damas, managing director of Drewry Shipping Consultants, who said low rates were a given through 2026 while shippers were asking for two rates — one for current transits via the Cape and one for the Suez.   “That option makes it easier to later effectively apply the relevant rates,” Damas told the Drewry webinar. “Another option is to negotiate based on the Cape routing and have a specific review clause that when the Suez Canal transits resume fully, there will be a renegotiation. Having that clause up front is probably easier.”   Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com .   

CMA CGM backs off plans to resume Suez transits for Asia-Europe services 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The regulator’s decision was unanimous, but Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern can fix what is deficient in the application and resubmit it at a later date.</div>

The regulator’s decision was unanimous, but Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern can fix what is deficient in the application and resubmit it at a later date.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Surface Transportation Board dealt a blow Friday to Union Pacific Railroad’s $85 billion deal to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway, ruling the merger application UP filed last month is “incomplete.” The regulator’s decision was unanimous, but Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern can fix what is deficient in the application and resubmit it at a later date. UP must inform the STB before Feb. 17 whether it plans to refile an amended application, and can refile any time prior to June 22. Once resubmitted, the STB will initiate a similar 30-day review of the application’s completeness, which likely means it will not issue a final decision on the merger itself until at least the second half of 2027. "Given the deficiencies...the board finds the application is incomplete and, under the terms of the statute, must be rejected,” STB wrote in its ruling. “The board’s decision to reject the application should not be read as an indication of how the board might ultimately assess any revised application or future informational needs, should applicants decide to submit a revised application." In Friday’s 15-page decision, the STB highlighted three major deficiencies in the application, which was submitted by UP on Dec. 19. First, the regulators ruled that the traffic analysis underpinning the application is deficient because it uses market share totals from 2023 and fails to provide future market share projections. Second, the STB took issue with UP failing to disclose what’s called a “Schedule 5.8.” The document defines what counts as a “materially burdensome regulatory condition,” a regulatory outcome that could give UP the contractual right to walk away from the deal. UP had argued that the document didn’t need to be disclosed to the STB because it contains attorney-related work products. BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, and Canadian National all filed objections to UP’s application based on the first two issues that were flagged by STB. The STB also found that the related Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis control application was misclassified as a “minor” transaction instead of a “significant” transaction. STB applies different procedural and evidentiary requirements to major, significant, and minor transactions. By deeming something significant instead of minor, it means the board wants to examine the issues involved more closely. The STB also noted several minor, technical issues that should be addressed in a revised application. While the board did not specify what those issues were, a Journal of Commerce analysis of the application found spelling errors and cities labeled with the incorrect state. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a></div>

The US Surface Transportation Board dealt a blow Friday to Union Pacific Railroad’s $85 billion deal to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway, ruling the merger application UP filed last month is “incomplete.” The regulator’s decision was unanimous, but Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern can fix what is deficient in the application and resubmit it at a later date. UP must inform the STB before Feb. 17 whether it plans to refile an amended application, and can refile any time prior to June 22. Once resubmitted, the STB will initiate a similar 30-day review of the application’s completeness, which likely means it will not issue a final decision on the merger itself until at least the second half of 2027. "Given the deficiencies...the board finds the application is incomplete and, under the terms of the statute, must be rejected,” STB wrote in its ruling. “The board’s decision to reject the application should not be read as an indication of how the board might ultimately assess any revised application or future informational needs, should applicants decide to submit a revised application." In Friday’s 15-page decision, the STB highlighted three major deficiencies in the application, which was submitted by UP on Dec. 19. First, the regulators ruled that the traffic analysis underpinning the application is deficient because it uses market share totals from 2023 and fails to provide future market share projections. Second, the STB took issue with UP failing to disclose what’s called a “Schedule 5.8.” The document defines what counts as a “materially burdensome regulatory condition,” a regulatory outcome that could give UP the contractual right to walk away from the deal. UP had argued that the document didn’t need to be disclosed to the STB because it contains attorney-related work products. BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, and Canadian National all filed objections to UP’s application based on the first two issues that were flagged by STB. The STB also found that the related Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis control application was misclassified as a “minor” transaction instead of a “significant” transaction. STB applies different procedural and evidentiary requirements to major, significant, and minor transactions. By deeming something significant instead of minor, it means the board wants to examine the issues involved more closely. The STB also noted several minor, technical issues that should be addressed in a revised application. While the board did not specify what those issues were, a Journal of Commerce analysis of the application found spelling errors and cities labeled with the incorrect state. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com

Rail News

STB rejects UP-NS merger application as ‘incomplete’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Noel Hacegaba made the announcement about the possible 1.8 million-TEU terminal during his first State of the Port presentation since taking over as CEO on Jan. 1 following the retirement of Mario Cordero.</div>

Noel Hacegaba made the announcement about the possible 1.8 million-TEU terminal during his first State of the Port presentation since taking over as CEO on Jan. 1 following the retirement of Mario Cordero.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Long Beach is exploring the possibility of developing what its new CEO said Thursday would be the “first conventional, zero-emissions container terminal in the world.” Noel Hacegaba made the announcement during his first State of the Port presentation since taking over as CEO on Jan. 1 following the retirement of Mario Cordero. Hacegaba said Long Beach has inked an exclusive agreement with Brookfield Infrastructure Group for the potential development of a 1.8 million-TEU terminal designed for express vessels of up to 9,000-TEU capacity. The facility, being called the Metro Express Terminal, would be built on Long Beach’s Pier S and use zero-emission, human-operated equipment, container peel-off operations, 24/7 gate access, free-flow cargo stacks and zero-emission trucks, he said. If it comes to fruition, Brookfield would partner with Nautilus International on the project, further details of which were not disclosed in Hacegaba’s presentation. That presentation made clear that the Port of Long Beach will leverage marine terminal expansion, massive investment in intermodal rail connectivity and the creation of a supply chain information highway to handle a projected doubling of container volume by 2050. That comes after the port handled a record 9.9 million laden and empty TEUs in 2025, according to data from the port. “According to our latest cargo forecast, 2050 is the year our container volumes will reach 20 million TEUs,” Hacegaba said. Long Beach forecasts it will handle about 9 million TEUs this year, which although down from 2025, will still rank among its top five years, he said. Long Beach faces an immediate challenge in adjusting to diminishing imports from China due to the Trump administration’s tariffs, and fewer exports to China because of that country’s counter tariffs. “Six years ago, about 70% of all our cargo — imports and exports — was tied to China,” Hacegaba said. “Today that’s down to 60%.” While the tariffs have fostered a shifting of US trade to Vietnam and other countries in Southeast Asia, it has also highlighted the importance of adding “speed, precision and reliability” to the Long Beach supply chain as it competes for cargo with other US ports, he said. <h3>Emphasis on on-dock rail connectivity </h3>Long Beach is investing $1.8 billion in its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/inland-rail-connectivity-key-to-port-of-long-beach-growth-new-ceo-6133971">on-dock rail support facility at Pier B</a>, which is scheduled for completion in 2032. By assembling longer intermodal trains on dock rather than at near-dock sites that require a move by truck, the transfer of containers from vessel to train, which now takes slightly less than four days, will be reduced to 24 hours, Hacegaba said. “Our terminals are driving the movement of rail to inland points,” he said. “TTI (Total Terminals International) is already moving more than 50% of its containers by rail.” The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ns-deal-could-benefit-some-shippers-while-others-face-longer-transits-6143225">proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern</a>, which would create the nation’s first transcontinental railroad, holds the potential for faster, more efficient intermodal service to rail hubs in the eastern half of the country. Also, the announcement in November by BNSF Railway and CSX that they will <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/intermodal-cooperation-on-rails-has-declined-amid-cost-pressures-6152067">expand their intermodal partnership for service connecting Long Beach with rail terminals in the Ohio Valley and the Northeast</a> will cut transit times by as much as two days, Hacegaba said. Five of Long Beach’s six container terminals last year handled more than 1 million TEUs, with two of those facilities handling more than 2 million TEUs. International Transportation Service and Macquarie Asset Management in July broke ground on a project that will fill in a 19-acre slip at Pier G that will enhance operational efficiency and build a single, continuous wharf measuring 3,400 feet that will accommodate the berthing of two super-post Panamax ships at the same time, Hacegaba said. <h3>Data sharing within the supply chain </h3>Hacegaba also announced that development is beginning on Long Beach’s CargoNav digital platform that will navigate the supply chain one container at a time, from arrival on the dock to shipment to its final destination. Further information will be released in the coming months. Emphasizing the importance of data sharing among carriers, terminal operators, truckers, railroads and shippers, Long Beach several years ago unveiled its supply chain information highway through its community portal. “The goal was simple, end-to-end visibility via coast-to-coast connectivity,” Hacegaba said. Long Beach in the coming weeks will also launch a universal trucking appointment system that members of the Harbor Trucking Association asked for several years ago, he said. Projects that improve operational efficiency will be another priority, Hacegaba said, particularly those that continue to reduce harmful emissions from vessels, cargo-handling equipment, tugboats, trucks, and trains. “As we continue our quest to zero emissions, we remain laser-focused on our core mission — moving more cargo more quickly, safely, efficiently, and sustainably,” he said Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a></div>

The Port of Long Beach is exploring the possibility of developing what its new CEO said Thursday would be the “first conventional, zero-emissions container terminal in the world.” Noel Hacegaba made the announcement during his first State of the Port presentation since taking over as CEO on Jan. 1 following the retirement of Mario Cordero. Hacegaba said Long Beach has inked an exclusive agreement with Brookfield Infrastructure Group for the potential development of a 1.8 million-TEU terminal designed for express vessels of up to 9,000-TEU capacity. The facility, being called the Metro Express Terminal, would be built on Long Beach’s Pier S and use zero-emission, human-operated equipment, container peel-off operations, 24/7 gate access, free-flow cargo stacks and zero-emission trucks, he said. If it comes to fruition, Brookfield would partner with Nautilus International on the project, further details of which were not disclosed in Hacegaba’s presentation. That presentation made clear that the Port of Long Beach will leverage marine terminal expansion, massive investment in intermodal rail connectivity and the creation of a supply chain information highway to handle a projected doubling of container volume by 2050. That comes after the port handled a record 9.9 million laden and empty TEUs in 2025, according to data from the port. “According to our latest cargo forecast, 2050 is the year our container volumes will reach 20 million TEUs,” Hacegaba said. Long Beach forecasts it will handle about 9 million TEUs this year, which although down from 2025, will still rank among its top five years, he said. Long Beach faces an immediate challenge in adjusting to diminishing imports from China due to the Trump administration’s tariffs, and fewer exports to China because of that country’s counter tariffs. “Six years ago, about 70% of all our cargo — imports and exports — was tied to China,” Hacegaba said. “Today that’s down to 60%.” While the tariffs have fostered a shifting of US trade to Vietnam and other countries in Southeast Asia, it has also highlighted the importance of adding “speed, precision and reliability” to the Long Beach supply chain as it competes for cargo with other US ports, he said. Emphasis on on-dock rail connectivity Long Beach is investing $1.8 billion in its on-dock rail support facility at Pier B , which is scheduled for completion in 2032. By assembling longer intermodal trains on dock rather than at near-dock sites that require a move by truck, the transfer of containers from vessel to train, which now takes slightly less than four days, will be reduced to 24 hours, Hacegaba said. “Our terminals are driving the movement of rail to inland points,” he said. “TTI (Total Terminals International) is already moving more than 50% of its containers by rail.” The proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern , which would create the nation’s first transcontinental railroad, holds the potential for faster, more efficient intermodal service to rail hubs in the eastern half of the country. Also, the announcement in November by BNSF Railway and CSX that they will expand their intermodal partnership for service connecting Long Beach with rail terminals in the Ohio Valley and the Northeast will cut transit times by as much as two days, Hacegaba said. Five of Long Beach’s six container terminals last year handled more than 1 million TEUs, with two of those facilities handling more than 2 million TEUs. International Transportation Service and Macquarie Asset Management in July broke ground on a project that will fill in a 19-acre slip at Pier G that will enhance operational efficiency and build a single, continuous wharf measuring 3,400 feet that will accommodate the berthing of two super-post Panamax ships at the same time, Hacegaba said. Data sharing within the supply chain Hacegaba also announced that development is beginning on Long Beach’s CargoNav digital platform that will navigate the supply chain one container at a time, from arrival on the dock to shipment to its final destination. Further information will be released in the coming months. Emphasizing the importance of data sharing among carriers, terminal operators, truckers, railroads and shippers, Long Beach several years ago unveiled its supply chain information highway through its community portal. “The goal was simple, end-to-end visibility via coast-to-coast connectivity,” Hacegaba said. Long Beach in the coming weeks will also launch a universal trucking appointment system that members of the Harbor Trucking Association asked for several years ago, he said. Projects that improve operational efficiency will be another priority, Hacegaba said, particularly those that continue to reduce harmful emissions from vessels, cargo-handling equipment, tugboats, trucks, and trains. “As we continue our quest to zero emissions, we remain laser-focused on our core mission — moving more cargo more quickly, safely, efficiently, and sustainably,” he said Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com

Long Beach considering development of ‘conventional, zero-emissions' terminal: CEO

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code NYW26 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE

Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW26 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

NEW YEAR SALE: Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

NEW YEAR SALE: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As shippers realize that threats to service are not periodic but systemic, their focus on reliability will only intensify this year, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

As shippers realize that threats to service are not periodic but systemic, their focus on reliability will only intensify this year, writes Peter Tirschwell.

<div class="phx-topic">This year will not be marked by freight rates collapsing due to overcapacity and shippers weary from tariff costs reaping a windfall in ocean freight discounts. Despite the largest order book in history and volumes expected to slow globally, that is not the scenario coming into focus for the year ahead, even if widespread Red Sea transits resume. Rather, according to several sources in recent weeks, a different picture is emerging: Rates will likely moderate, perhaps by a few hundred dollars per container, and as shippers realize that threats to service are not periodic but systemic, their focus on reliability will only intensify this year. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6155383_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The year ahead, in other words, reflects long-term macro trends under way in containers: capacity tightening despite cyclicality due to infrastructure limitations and carrier actions to manage capacity, and shippers in response turning their focus away from rates and toward service to mitigate risk. “For 2026 as we move into this bid season, it won’t be all about the ocean rates,” Chantal McRoberts of Drewry Supply Chain Advisers told a recent Journal of Commerce webinar focused on Asia port congestion.  “We know that we’re in a more subdued demand environment. We know that the order book is large. We know that carriers are looking to secure volume, but the key to that is, what service are you providing? Shippers are definitely starting to factor that into their bid strategies,” she said. “The number one question that comes up from BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] is, putting the rates aside, I need a reliable provider or partner to work with. I still have to answer to the CFO. I still have to justify the cost, but I now also have to ensure that I'm procuring my ocean freight to deliver my product.” According to eeSea, ocean reliability from Asia to the US West Coast has ranged between 42% and 48% since September. <h3>China ‘lacking port capacity’ </h3>Port congestion in China is a case in point about shippers’ growing concerns about the integrity of supply chains.  Still the source of 36% of US imports in TEUs in 2025, (down from 40% in 2024), according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, the country is encountering chronic congestion at Shanghai and Ningbo, its two largest ports, where ships typically are waiting two to three days outside the port. The fundamental reason, according to Asia sources over the past two years, was that while China ambitiously built port capacity ahead of demand in the years after entering the World Trade Organization in 2001, expansion has slowed at a time when its exports are experiencing a growth spurt.  “I know it’s a shocker, and it feels unnatural to hear it, but China is lacking port capacity. It’s as simple as that,” Nils Roche, founder of Solvens Advisory and recently deputy head of operations at Singapore-based carrier PIL, said on the Journal of Commerce webinar. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="615c1430-acb8-4c73-9884-61992f08d1d3"></dynamic-object></div>Limited port capacity in China is being called upon to handle surging volumes growing out of a macro-China economic strategy to diversify away from the US and overcome weakness in other sectors such as real estate.  China in November surpassed the $1 trillion trade surplus barrier for the first time. Its share of global exports grew from 33% to 37% between 2023 and 2025, Maersk told investors in November. Influenced by export growth, S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence in November raised Mainland China’s GDP growth forecast for 2025–27 by a quarter point, to 5.0%, 4.6% and 4.5%, respectively. “The upward adjustments primarily reflect a more positive assessment of export prospects,” S&amp;P Global said. The intractable nature of port capacity limitations is further reflected in growing ship sizes and more containers needed to be moved per port call at ports that have not kept pace. “The ships that you have today, they are not the ships that we had 10 years ago. If you think about it, I used to operate Panamaxes, and they were the rock stars,” Roche said, noting his skepticism that technology-driven productivity improvements can meaningfully expand capacity. “Now you have 18,000, 24,000-TEU ships coming into the ports. A Panamax calling a port is a port call, a 24,000-TEU ship calling a port, it's a major event.” The difficulty ports have in handling the volumes and ship sizes being thrown at them is confirmed by port performance data. The S&amp;P Global Port Performance data is based on vessel turnaround time and normalized by workload, with underlying data provided by carriers — in other words, how many hours a ship is spending in port to achieve a certain move count. The data shows ports on a global basis are operating well below pre-pandemic levels of performance. Due to port capacity limitations, Roche says the industry should temper its expectations for the impact of a return to the Red Sea, if that occurs this year (although there is no guarantee it will).  He said that if the Red Sea opens up, “we should not expect a massive influx of capacity, simply because the lack of capacity, or the bottleneck if you prefer, will be transferred from the ocean to the land.” “I disagree with the narrative carried by analysts that shipping obeys 100% of the laws of supply and demand, and that more ships mean more supply ... it’s being half-blind to an entire ecosystem,” Roche said. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce.Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

This year will not be marked by freight rates collapsing due to overcapacity and shippers weary from tariff costs reaping a windfall in ocean freight discounts. Despite the largest order book in history and volumes expected to slow globally, that is not the scenario coming into focus for the year ahead, even if widespread Red Sea transits resume.  Rather, according to several sources in recent weeks, a different picture is emerging: Rates will likely moderate, perhaps by a few hundred dollars per container, and as shippers realize that threats to service are not periodic but systemic, their focus on reliability will only intensify this year. The year ahead, in other words, reflects long-term macro trends under way in containers: capacity tightening despite cyclicality due to infrastructure limitations and carrier actions to manage capacity, and shippers in response turning their focus away from rates and toward service to mitigate risk.  “For 2026 as we move into this bid season, it won’t be all about the ocean rates,” Chantal McRoberts of Drewry Supply Chain Advisers told a recent Journal of Commerce webinar focused on Asia port congestion.   “We know that we’re in a more subdued demand environment. We know that the order book is large. We know that carriers are looking to secure volume, but the key to that is, what service are you providing? Shippers are definitely starting to factor that into their bid strategies,” she said. “The number one question that comes up from BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] is, putting the rates aside, I need a reliable provider or partner to work with. I still have to answer to the CFO. I still have to justify the cost, but I now also have to ensure that I'm procuring my ocean freight to deliver my product.”  According to eeSea, ocean reliability from Asia to the US West Coast has ranged between 42% and 48% since September.  China ‘lacking port capacity’  Port congestion in China is a case in point about shippers’ growing concerns about the integrity of supply chains.   Still the source of 36% of US imports in TEUs in 2025, (down from 40% in 2024), according to S&P Global Market Intelligence, the country is encountering chronic congestion at Shanghai and Ningbo, its two largest ports, where ships typically are waiting two to three days outside the port.  The fundamental reason, according to Asia sources over the past two years, was that while China ambitiously built port capacity ahead of demand in the years after entering the World Trade Organization in 2001, expansion has slowed at a time when its exports are experiencing a growth spurt.   “I know it’s a shocker, and it feels unnatural to hear it, but China is lacking port capacity. It’s as simple as that,” Nils Roche, founder of Solvens Advisory and recently deputy head of operations at Singapore-based carrier PIL, said on the Journal of Commerce webinar. Limited port capacity in China is being called upon to handle surging volumes growing out of a macro-China economic strategy to diversify away from the US and overcome weakness in other sectors such as real estate.   China in November surpassed the $1 trillion trade surplus barrier for the first time. Its share of global exports grew from 33% to 37% between 2023 and 2025, Maersk told investors in November. Influenced by export growth, S&P Global Market Intelligence in November raised Mainland China’s GDP growth forecast for 2025–27 by a quarter point, to 5.0%, 4.6% and 4.5%, respectively. “The upward adjustments primarily reflect a more positive assessment of export prospects,” S&P Global said.  The intractable nature of port capacity limitations is further reflected in growing ship sizes and more containers needed to be moved per port call at ports that have not kept pace.  “The ships that you have today, they are not the ships that we had 10 years ago. If you think about it, I used to operate Panamaxes, and they were the rock stars,” Roche said, noting his skepticism that technology-driven productivity improvements can meaningfully expand capacity. “Now you have 18,000, 24,000-TEU ships coming into the ports. A Panamax calling a port is a port call, a 24,000-TEU ship calling a port, it's a major event.” The difficulty ports have in handling the volumes and ship sizes being thrown at them is confirmed by port performance data. The S&P Global Port Performance data is based on vessel turnaround time and normalized by workload, with underlying data provided by carriers — in other words, how many hours a ship is spending in port to achieve a certain move count. The data shows ports on a global basis are operating well below pre-pandemic levels of performance. Due to port capacity limitations, Roche says the industry should temper its expectations for the impact of a return to the Red Sea, if that occurs this year (although there is no guarantee it will).   He said that if the Red Sea opens up, “we should not expect a massive influx of capacity, simply because the lack of capacity, or the bottleneck if you prefer, will be transferred from the ocean to the land.”  “I disagree with the narrative carried by analysts that shipping obeys 100% of the laws of supply and demand, and that more ships mean more supply ... it’s being half-blind to an entire ecosystem,” Roche said.  S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce.Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Supply chain certainty, rather than price, will shape shipping in 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier consortium released details of its new network showing a slight uptick in port calls primarily from Southeast Asia and small rotation changes on the US East Coast.</div>

The carrier consortium released details of its new network showing a slight uptick in port calls primarily from Southeast Asia and small rotation changes on the US East Coast.

<div class="phx-topic">Carriers in the Ocean Alliance will be offering North American shippers more connections from Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent as part of their 2026 network. Ocean Alliance carriers will also make their first return to the Port of Jacksonville in seven years with a new call on their Gulf Coast service. CMA CGM, Cosco Shipping and Evergreen Marine each announced this week the launch of the Ocean Alliance’s “Day 10” product covering 14 services to the North American West Coast and eight to the East Coast. The new network will go into effect as of April. While the number of services to North America did not change compared with the alliance’s 2025 network, the 2026 network to and from the US and Canada does feature new port rotations that highlight the ongoing shift of US importers away from China. The Port of Haiphong will see the biggest increase in North American connectivity. Calls to the Vietnamese port, where <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-signs-deal-to-develop-600-million-haiphong-terminal-complex-6012131">CMA CGM plans to build a $600 million terminal</a>, will be added to four trans-Pacific services to North America, according to Cosco’s Day 10 schedule. On the West Coast, those services include the Pacific Southwest 9 (PSW9) service to Long Beach and the Pacific Northwest 2 (PNW2) to the ports of Vancouver and Seattle. Haiphong remains a call for Ocean Alliance’s PSW1 service into Long Beach. However, another Long Beach service, PSW10, that previously called Haiphong as part of the 2025 network, appears to have been dropped in favor of the Port of Laem Chabang in Thailand. Ocean Alliance’s 2025 network previously had no regular service between Southeast Asia and the Pacific Northwest. On the East Coast, Haiphong will be added as a call to the USEC3 and 5 services. Haiphong was previously a call only on the Ocean Alliance’s USEC8 service into Norfolk as of 2025, but that call has been replaced with Vietnam’s Cai Mep as of the 2026 network. Laem Chabang will also be on the new rotation for the PSW7 service into Los Angeles. The Laem Chabang call appears to have replaced a call to Malaysia’s Port Klang featured on the 2025 network. The transshipment port of Colombo in Sri Lanka will also be added to the USEC5 service that makes first call at Savannah, adding a second Ocean Alliance service from the Indian subcontinent along with the current USEC3 service rotation. In addition, Ocean Alliance added Taiwan’s Kaohsiung as a backhaul on three West Coast trans-Pacific services, along with a westbound call to South Korea’s Busan. Chinese port rotations will also see small changes in the 2026 network. The southern China port of Yangpu, across the Beibu Gulf from Haiphong, will be added to the front-haul for the PSW9 and PNW2 services to the West Coast. Tianjin will also be added to the PSW5 service, while Hong Kong will be added to the PNW2 service.China’s Xiamen port will get a second service with a new call on the USEC4 service, adding to an existing call on the USEC2 service. But a previous Xiamen call on the USEC5 appears to have been dropped in favor of the new Haiphong call. Amid the ongoing sourcing shift away from China, container volumes from Southeast Asia to the US saw year-over-year gains in every month last year, with 10 of those months seeing double-digit gains, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="021af9b6-860f-45a6-99eb-549dc05cabfe"></dynamic-object></div><h3>Jacksonville gets Far East service</h3>Jacksonville this year will be on the rotation for Ocean Alliance’s USEC6 service that covers the US Gulf Coast. The USEC6 previously featured a call to New Orleans, but it’s not included in the 2026 network. While Jacksonville already has Asia services through the Premier Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Zim Integrated Shipping, the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jaxport-optimistic-on-growth-despite-service-loss-5236112">Ocean Alliance has not been a regular caller to the port since 2019</a> when it dropped Jacksonville on the same service. Other US rotation changes include dropping Charleston from the USEC4 service, while keeping the port on rotation for three other Ocean Alliance services. The USEC4 will replace the Charleston call with a call to Baltimore, but that port will be dropped from the USEC5 service. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Carriers in the Ocean Alliance will be offering North American shippers more connections from Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent as part of their 2026 network. Ocean Alliance carriers will also make their first return to the Port of Jacksonville in seven years with a new call on their Gulf Coast service. CMA CGM, Cosco Shipping and Evergreen Marine each announced this week the launch of the Ocean Alliance’s “Day 10” product covering 14 services to the North American West Coast and eight to the East Coast. The new network will go into effect as of April. While the number of services to North America did not change compared with the alliance’s 2025 network, the 2026 network to and from the US and Canada does feature new port rotations that highlight the ongoing shift of US importers away from China. The Port of Haiphong will see the biggest increase in North American connectivity. Calls to the Vietnamese port, where CMA CGM plans to build a $600 million terminal , will be added to four trans-Pacific services to North America, according to Cosco’s Day 10 schedule. On the West Coast, those services include the Pacific Southwest 9 (PSW9) service to Long Beach and the Pacific Northwest 2 (PNW2) to the ports of Vancouver and Seattle. Haiphong remains a call for Ocean Alliance’s PSW1 service into Long Beach. However, another Long Beach service, PSW10, that previously called Haiphong as part of the 2025 network, appears to have been dropped in favor of the Port of Laem Chabang in Thailand. Ocean Alliance’s 2025 network previously had no regular service between Southeast Asia and the Pacific Northwest. On the East Coast, Haiphong will be added as a call to the USEC3 and 5 services. Haiphong was previously a call only on the Ocean Alliance’s USEC8 service into Norfolk as of 2025, but that call has been replaced with Vietnam’s Cai Mep as of the 2026 network. Laem Chabang will also be on the new rotation for the PSW7 service into Los Angeles. The Laem Chabang call appears to have replaced a call to Malaysia’s Port Klang featured on the 2025 network. The transshipment port of Colombo in Sri Lanka will also be added to the USEC5 service that makes first call at Savannah, adding a second Ocean Alliance service from the Indian subcontinent along with the current USEC3 service rotation. In addition, Ocean Alliance added Taiwan’s Kaohsiung as a backhaul on three West Coast trans-Pacific services, along with a westbound call to South Korea’s Busan. Chinese port rotations will also see small changes in the 2026 network. The southern China port of Yangpu, across the Beibu Gulf from Haiphong, will be added to the front-haul for the PSW9 and PNW2 services to the West Coast. Tianjin will also be added to the PSW5 service, while Hong Kong will be added to the PNW2 service. China’s Xiamen port will get a second service with a new call on the USEC4 service, adding to an existing call on the USEC2 service. But a previous Xiamen call on the USEC5 appears to have been dropped in favor of the new Haiphong call. Amid the ongoing sourcing shift away from China, container volumes from Southeast Asia to the US saw year-over-year gains in every month last year, with 10 of those months seeing double-digit gains, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Jacksonville gets Far East service Jacksonville this year will be on the rotation for Ocean Alliance’s USEC6 service that covers the US Gulf Coast. The USEC6 previously featured a call to New Orleans, but it’s not included in the 2026 network. While Jacksonville already has Asia services through the Premier Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Zim Integrated Shipping, the Ocean Alliance has not been a regular caller to the port since 2019 when it dropped Jacksonville on the same service. Other US rotation changes include dropping Charleston from the USEC4 service, while keeping the port on rotation for three other Ocean Alliance services. The USEC4 will replace the Charleston call with a call to Baltimore, but that port will be dropped from the USEC5 service. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

FMC takes second look at ocean carrier limits on chassis choice

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

CMA CGM backs off plans to resume Suez transits for Asia-Europe services

STB rejects UP-NS merger application as ‘incomplete’

Long Beach considering development of ‘conventional, zero-emissions' terminal: CEO

Recent Commentary

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

Pace of freight market recovery a matter of ‘gradually, then suddenly’

Top 5 Most Read Stories