<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker. </div>

The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/potential-new-us-tariffs-cloud-sourcing-strategies-peak-season-demand-6187613">Stalling restocking efforts</a> and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” <h3>Consumer confidence at new low </h3>Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b0bc7107-6699-4b28-9759-684b190b845a"></dynamic-object></div>Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “ Stalling restocking efforts and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” Consumer confidence at new low Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at kevin.saville2@spglobal.com . Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Port News

Trans-Pacific

Supply chain

North American ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">FMCSA set a May 14 deadline for carriers and brokers to update their registration information before switching to “Motus,” a system that includes ID verification tools. </div>

FMCSA set a May 14 deadline for carriers and brokers to update their registration information before switching to “Motus,” a system that includes ID verification tools.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Department of Transportation (DOT) is nearly ready to throw the switch on “Motus,” <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/important-steps-you-must-take-prepare-fmcsas-new-registration-system">a new registration system</a> for trucking companies and freight brokers and forwarders. The DOT is encouraging hundreds of thousands of registered companies to go online and update their information by May 14, when the existing system will “go dark.” “We are modernizing the system and replacing decades-old systems, multiple systems,” Ken Riddle, director of the Office of Registration for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), told the Journal of Commerce Friday. That includes the Unified Registration System (URS) introduced in 2015 for new motor carrier registrants. For the first time, the new registration system introduces identity verification methods for individuals and businesses aimed at preventing fraud and weeding out “chameleon” carriers that shut down and reopen under new names to avoid penalties and continue operations. Motus will apply to all existing registrants as well as new companies. “We’re asking existing companies to go into their <a href="https://portal.fmcsa.dot.gov/login">FMCSA Portal account</a>, make sure it’s active and update their information,” Riddle said. Going forward, only the company official specifically identified with the account will be able to access the system, and he or she will have to verify their identity, Riddle said. Motus also will replace the FMCSA Portal. <h3>Helping prevent fraud </h3>The FMCSA began implementing Motus in December, making the system available to companies such as process agents and insurers representing motor carriers. The May 14 transition begins “Phase II” of Motus implementation, Riddle said. For companies that miss the deadline, “I’m concerned they’ll have to wait in a long line,” he said. Motus will not only help FMCSA clean up its registration rolls but willalso make it harder for fraudulent companies to operate. The agency contracted with technology-based secure transaction and identity verification firms IDEMIA and CLEAR to verify both personal and business identities of existing and new registrations accessing Motus. “IDEMIA is the same company that verifies IDs at all our airports,” Riddle said. “During the verification process, you’ll scan a QR code that will send you to their ID process — that’s step one. Step two is business verification with CLEAR, which will look at company names, EIN [employer identification numbers], and addresses to ensure they match. “When you go through all that, you will get verification codes you must enter to get into the system, so there are a number of steps that will help us reduce fraud,” he added. “I won’t go so far as to say it will prevent fraud, but it will help.” Riddle said he expects the new system to be online early in the week of May 18. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) is nearly ready to throw the switch on “Motus,” a new registration system for trucking companies and freight brokers and forwarders. The DOT is encouraging hundreds of thousands of registered companies to go online and update their information by May 14, when the existing system will “go dark.” “We are modernizing the system and replacing decades-old systems, multiple systems,” Ken Riddle, director of the Office of Registration for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), told the Journal of Commerce Friday. That includes the Unified Registration System (URS) introduced in 2015 for new motor carrier registrants. For the first time, the new registration system introduces identity verification methods for individuals and businesses aimed at preventing fraud and weeding out “chameleon” carriers that shut down and reopen under new names to avoid penalties and continue operations. Motus will apply to all existing registrants as well as new companies. “We’re asking existing companies to go into their FMCSA Portal account , make sure it’s active and update their information,” Riddle said. Going forward, only the company official specifically identified with the account will be able to access the system, and he or she will have to verify their identity, Riddle said. Motus also will replace the FMCSA Portal. Helping prevent fraud The FMCSA began implementing Motus in December, making the system available to companies such as process agents and insurers representing motor carriers. The May 14 transition begins “Phase II” of Motus implementation, Riddle said. For companies that miss the deadline, “I’m concerned they’ll have to wait in a long line,” he said. Motus will not only help FMCSA clean up its registration rolls but willalso make it harder for fraudulent companies to operate. The agency contracted with technology-based secure transaction and identity verification firms IDEMIA and CLEAR to verify both personal and business identities of existing and new registrations accessing Motus. “IDEMIA is the same company that verifies IDs at all our airports,” Riddle said. “During the verification process, you’ll scan a QR code that will send you to their ID process — that’s step one. Step two is business verification with CLEAR, which will look at company names, EIN [employer identification numbers], and addresses to ensure they match. “When you go through all that, you will get verification codes you must enter to get into the system, so there are a number of steps that will help us reduce fraud,” he added. “I won’t go so far as to say it will prevent fraud, but it will help.” Riddle said he expects the new system to be online early in the week of May 18. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Truck brokers

Surface

US DOT readies new trucker registration system to help fight fraud

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman had kept carriers restricted to imports since the war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. </div>

Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman had kept carriers restricted to imports since the war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints.

<div class="phx-topic">Terminals at alternative ports of call in the Persian Gulf have reopened gates to outbound freight flows, albeit slowly, market sources say. The ports — Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sohar in Oman — had kept container carriers restricted to import discharges since the Middle East war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. The ports have been the supply chain lifeline for Middle East-bound shipments since the Middle East war erupted Feb. 28. But contingency port operations effectively meant a “single leg” cargo opportunity for vessel operators as they were not allowed to pick up boxes on the backhaul in order to avoid longer berth stays. Multiple Dubai-based freight forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce confirmed that a few mainliners, notably CMA CGM, and other major feeder operators, usually backed by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), are now moving Middle East-origin containers into India. “Although uneven and dependent on the space situation, export gate-ins have resumed,” said a source who didn’t want to be identified. CMA CGM has regular weekly sailings connecting three western Indian ports — Hazira, Mundra and Nhava Sheva — to Fujairah and Sohar under its “BIGEX” network. The French carrier is also understood to have evacuated most Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Nhava Sheva, including accumulated hazardous/dangerous cargo boxes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rerouted-middle-east-hazmat-containers-spark-safety-concerns-at-indian-ports-6208692">that had sparked safety concerns for the port authority</a>. Middle East ports traditionally play a major role for carriers in repositioning empty containers to demand locations, including India. With the renewed operational flexibility, CMA CGM has been able to relocate accumulated empties via Fujairah into Nhava Sheva to replenish its tightening inventory capacity in India. While the Middle East disruption strained carriers’ inventory cycles, weaker export demand from India prevented any sort of industrywide equipment imbalance issues, local sources said. <h3>CMA CGM, AD Ports ink logistics deal </h3>Meanwhile, CMA CGM has reached an agreement with AD Ports Group to work together on intermodal logistics solutions across the UAE to neighboring countries. The move comes as demand for multimodal/land bridge alternatives continues to grow in the region. “The collaboration will explore opportunities to strengthen cargo flows across the UAE and regional markets, including the northern Emirates, whilst extending trade corridor optionality through rail-linked inland connectivity to the borders of ... Oman and ... Saudi Arabia,” the partners said in a joint statement. Through its CMA Terminals subsidiary, the Marseille-based carrier already has a terminal joint venture with AD Ports at Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Terminals at alternative ports of call in the Persian Gulf have reopened gates to outbound freight flows, albeit slowly, market sources say. The ports — Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sohar in Oman — had kept container carriers restricted to import discharges since the Middle East war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. The ports have been the supply chain lifeline for Middle East-bound shipments since the Middle East war erupted Feb. 28. But contingency port operations effectively meant a “single leg” cargo opportunity for vessel operators as they were not allowed to pick up boxes on the backhaul in order to avoid longer berth stays. Multiple Dubai-based freight forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce confirmed that a few mainliners, notably CMA CGM, and other major feeder operators, usually backed by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), are now moving Middle East-origin containers into India. “Although uneven and dependent on the space situation, export gate-ins have resumed,” said a source who didn’t want to be identified. CMA CGM has regular weekly sailings connecting three western Indian ports — Hazira, Mundra and Nhava Sheva — to Fujairah and Sohar under its “BIGEX” network. The French carrier is also understood to have evacuated most Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Nhava Sheva, including accumulated hazardous/dangerous cargo boxes that had sparked safety concerns for the port authority . Middle East ports traditionally play a major role for carriers in repositioning empty containers to demand locations, including India. With the renewed operational flexibility, CMA CGM has been able to relocate accumulated empties via Fujairah into Nhava Sheva to replenish its tightening inventory capacity in India. While the Middle East disruption strained carriers’ inventory cycles, weaker export demand from India prevented any sort of industrywide equipment imbalance issues, local sources said. CMA CGM, AD Ports ink logistics deal Meanwhile, CMA CGM has reached an agreement with AD Ports Group to work together on intermodal logistics solutions across the UAE to neighboring countries. The move comes as demand for multimodal/land bridge alternatives continues to grow in the region. “The collaboration will explore opportunities to strengthen cargo flows across the UAE and regional markets, including the northern Emirates, whilst extending trade corridor optionality through rail-linked inland connectivity to the borders of ... Oman and ... Saudi Arabia,” the partners said in a joint statement. Through its CMA Terminals subsidiary, the Marseille-based carrier already has a terminal joint venture with AD Ports at Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

International ports

Disrupted Middle East-India shipments restart as choked supply chains ease

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">One analyst says it is almost certain that rates in some parts of the country will climb because of the missing capacity next week, especially in warmer agriculture-dominant states now producing their first crop of the season.</div>

One analyst says it is almost certain that rates in some parts of the country will climb because of the missing capacity next week, especially in warmer agriculture-dominant states now producing their first crop of the season.

<div class="phx-topic">When hundreds of law enforcement officers from the US, Mexico and Canada hold the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA’s) annual International Roadcheck May 12-14, trucking leaders say it is likely to further tighten trucking capacity and nudge freight rates even higher. “I think we are going to see a Roadcheck like we haven’t seen in many, many years,” said Dean Croke, principal analyst for DAT Freight and Analytics. “You’re going to see more drivers that just take the week off and a lot of capacity has already left the market.” Croke said DAT did a survey of 534 carriers a couple of weeks ago, with 18% of respondents indicating they would idle their rigs next week. “They [are] parking their trucks and are not driving,” he said. As drivers seek to avoid the scrutiny of Roadcheck inspections, it comes as the federal government has been <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/house-committee-advances-bill-targeting-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses-6188801">aggressively enforcing regulations concerning non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs)</a>. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said this week more than 28,000 truck drivers have been taken off US roads since June 2025 because of the Department of Transportation’s tougher enforcement of standards, including English language proficiency requirements. The CVSA official tasked with organizing and running Roadcheck said it is unfortunate that some drivers plan to park their trucks, even as rates are increasing and, for those drivers who will be on the road, there is money to be made. “Everybody knows they’re trying to avoid inspections,” CVSA’s roadside inspections specialist Jeremy Disbrow said. “The benefit they have is that they know this is coming. This gives them an opportunity to make sure their truck is in good working order. I hear from the industry all the time that they want inspections, voluntary inspections, to improve their safety, so I don’t see why this would be harmful to them.” CVSA said inspectors will “conduct high-volume, 37-step Level I inspections across North America, with a specific focus on electronic logging device (ELD) compliance and cargo securement.” “Drivers with critical violations will be placed out of service,” it said. <h3>Ag shipments boost rates in warm-weather states </h3>Croke said it is almost certain that rates in some parts of the country are going to climb because of the missing capacity during Roadcheck, especially in warmer agriculture-dominant states now producing their first crop of the season. “The bigger thing that’s going to happen this week or next week in particular is the impact on produce, particularly in the Southeast and Florida,” Croke said. “What you’re about to see in the Southeast are spot rates for refrigerated carriers that go through the roof.” The May 4 Market Insights report from FTR Transportation Intelligence and <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/truckstop.com/__;!!DEyr4sPAfcQg!TOzvrYUpg7BvtqQHiQeR3G7R9phVZqhjofT6CToxKWRKprPm8yF-BnSUCm_ktEUV4jA7GiFwWng3c9Cu6OguzWS93Y_mMX8z$">Truckstop.com</a> showed broker-posted spot rates were at an all-time high for all equipment. The FTR dashboard showed inbound truckload reefer and flatbed rates in New England are the highest in the country at $3.67 per mile, with flatbed rates at $4.20. New York and Pennsylvania are slightly lower at $3.59 for truckload reefer, while flatbed rates are at $3.87. Reefer rates are $3.39 per mile in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Washington, DC, and Delaware. Flatbed rates there are $3.55 a mile. One example of produce likely to be impacted by higher reefer shipping rates is Georgia’s popular Vidalia onions. The 2026 season is in full swing, and the latest US Department of Agriculture National Shipping report said because the 200 million pounds of the popular sweet onions are grown in only 20 Georgia counties, “Vidalia shipments will likely face competitive freight markets.” <h3>Surging diesel prices </h3>Meanwhile, even before Roadcheck, Florida law enforcement officials had been aggressively enforcing traffic and other laws as part of “Operation Highway Shield,” tightening capacity in that state. The effort ran from March 23 to March 26, with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement inspecting more than 3,300 commercial vehicles. Officials said 176 drivers were removed from service. Fifty-four were for language-related deficiencies, 35 now face criminal violations, and 42 were taken into custody for immigration-related issues. That comes as diesel prices have surged amid the war with Iran and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. AAA said the average diesel price in the US on May 5 was nearly $5.66 per gallon, up 20 cents in just a week and $2.13 higher since the beginning of military hostilities in late February. Croke said Roadcheck will mean a period of several weeks where freight haulers who stay on the road will likely face increased police activity, but with an opportunity to make substantially more money in a relatively short period of time. “You’ve got even fewer trucks for the demand, and that means rates go even higher,” he said. “I’ve said what we have is stabilizing demand meets constrained supply.” And he says the next month will be volatile. “Rates will spike and then come back down when carriers come back into the market,” Croke said. “There will be a period of 10 to 14 days after Roadcheck where the market will start to stabilize and come back to normal. [But] May is going to be a great month for a lot of carriers.” Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>. </div>

When hundreds of law enforcement officers from the US, Mexico and Canada hold the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA’s) annual International Roadcheck May 12-14, trucking leaders say it is likely to further tighten trucking capacity and nudge freight rates even higher. “I think we are going to see a Roadcheck like we haven’t seen in many, many years,” said Dean Croke, principal analyst for DAT Freight and Analytics. “You’re going to see more drivers that just take the week off and a lot of capacity has already left the market.” Croke said DAT did a survey of 534 carriers a couple of weeks ago, with 18% of respondents indicating they would idle their rigs next week. “They [are] parking their trucks and are not driving,” he said. As drivers seek to avoid the scrutiny of Roadcheck inspections, it comes as the federal government has been aggressively enforcing regulations concerning non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) . Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said this week more than 28,000 truck drivers have been taken off US roads since June 2025 because of the Department of Transportation’s tougher enforcement of standards, including English language proficiency requirements. The CVSA official tasked with organizing and running Roadcheck said it is unfortunate that some drivers plan to park their trucks, even as rates are increasing and, for those drivers who will be on the road, there is money to be made. “Everybody knows they’re trying to avoid inspections,” CVSA’s roadside inspections specialist Jeremy Disbrow said. “The benefit they have is that they know this is coming. This gives them an opportunity to make sure their truck is in good working order. I hear from the industry all the time that they want inspections, voluntary inspections, to improve their safety, so I don’t see why this would be harmful to them.” CVSA said inspectors will “conduct high-volume, 37-step Level I inspections across North America, with a specific focus on electronic logging device (ELD) compliance and cargo securement.” “Drivers with critical violations will be placed out of service,” it said. Ag shipments boost rates in warm-weather states Croke said it is almost certain that rates in some parts of the country are going to climb because of the missing capacity during Roadcheck, especially in warmer agriculture-dominant states now producing their first crop of the season. “The bigger thing that’s going to happen this week or next week in particular is the impact on produce, particularly in the Southeast and Florida,” Croke said. “What you’re about to see in the Southeast are spot rates for refrigerated carriers that go through the roof.” The May 4 Market Insights report from FTR Transportation Intelligence and Truckstop.com showed broker-posted spot rates were at an all-time high for all equipment. The FTR dashboard showed inbound truckload reefer and flatbed rates in New England are the highest in the country at $3.67 per mile, with flatbed rates at $4.20. New York and Pennsylvania are slightly lower at $3.59 for truckload reefer, while flatbed rates are at $3.87. Reefer rates are $3.39 per mile in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Washington, DC, and Delaware. Flatbed rates there are $3.55 a mile. One example of produce likely to be impacted by higher reefer shipping rates is Georgia’s popular Vidalia onions. The 2026 season is in full swing, and the latest US Department of Agriculture National Shipping report said because the 200 million pounds of the popular sweet onions are grown in only 20 Georgia counties, “Vidalia shipments will likely face competitive freight markets.” Surging diesel prices Meanwhile, even before Roadcheck, Florida law enforcement officials had been aggressively enforcing traffic and other laws as part of “Operation Highway Shield,” tightening capacity in that state. The effort ran from March 23 to March 26, with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement inspecting more than 3,300 commercial vehicles. Officials said 176 drivers were removed from service. Fifty-four were for language-related deficiencies, 35 now face criminal violations, and 42 were taken into custody for immigration-related issues. That comes as diesel prices have surged amid the war with Iran and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. AAA said the average diesel price in the US on May 5 was nearly $5.66 per gallon, up 20 cents in just a week and $2.13 higher since the beginning of military hostilities in late February. Croke said Roadcheck will mean a period of several weeks where freight haulers who stay on the road will likely face increased police activity, but with an opportunity to make substantially more money in a relatively short period of time. “You’ve got even fewer trucks for the demand, and that means rates go even higher,” he said. “I’ve said what we have is stabilizing demand meets constrained supply.” And he says the next month will be volatile. “Rates will spike and then come back down when carriers come back into the market,” Croke said. “There will be a period of 10 to 14 days after Roadcheck where the market will start to stabilize and come back to normal. [But] May is going to be a great month for a lot of carriers.” Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com .

Truckload

Annual ‘Roadcheck’ likely to tighten US trucking capacity, boost rates 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But CEO Vincent Clerc said while the carrier assesses the situation with the view of eventually restarting some services through the region, Maersk would be taking a cautious approach, with the safety of seafarers the “first priority.” </div>

But CEO Vincent Clerc said while the carrier assesses the situation with the view of eventually restarting some services through the region, Maersk would be taking a cautious approach, with the safety of seafarers the “first priority.”

<div class="phx-topic">An end to the war in the Middle East would raise the prospect that the other key shipping corridor in the region — the Red Sea/Suez Canal — could be a viable option once again for commercial shipping, Maersk’s CEO says. Red Sea transits were halted when the war broke out in late February, just as ocean carriers were launching a tentative return to the route that had mostly been off-limits since late 2023 when Houthi militants in Yemen began attacks on vessels as a show of solidarity for Hamas in its war with Israel. Those attacks ended late last year amid a fragile ceasefire, prompting carriers to resume Red Sea transits on a small scale. But the route became effectively off-limits again when the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28. Tehran is reportedly considering the latest US peace plan, despite warships from both sides exchanging fire this week. Should the conflict end, there are hopes that Houthi militants — supported and supplied by Tehran — will allow safe passage for commercial shipping eager to return to the Red Sea/Suez Canal route. Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said an end to the war would bring the Red Sea back into the frame for the Copenhagen-based carrier, and he pointed out that no attacks have been reported in the Red Sea so far this year. But Clerc, speaking to analysts during <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-passing-500-million-monthly-fuel-bill-to-customers-in-full-ceo-6216319">Maersk’s first-quarter earnings call</a> Thursday, said while the carrier assesses the situation between the US and Iran with the view of eventually restarting some services through the Red Sea, Maersk would be taking a cautious approach, with the safety of seafarers the “first priority.” He also said the safety threshold required by Maersk appeared to be higher than that being applied by other carriers. “There is no doubt that we have a bit of a different threshold than some of our competitors that are going through the Bab el-Mandeb [Strait] today,” Clerc said. The Maersk CEO was clearly referencing CMA CGM, which has sent several ships via the Red Sea this year and just last week safely sailed its 23,876-TEU CMA CGM Grand Palais through the Bab el-Mandab Strait and Suez Canal en route to Malta from Singapore. Clerc also noted that some carriers in the Strait of Hormuz were taking “different chances than we did and have had either people being detained or people getting injured.” That, again, appeared to refer to CMA CGM, which on Tuesday had a vessel hit by a projectile while sailing past the coast of Oman at night. CMA CGM said in a statement the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care,” the carrier said. “CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew.” <h3>Limited naval escort capacity </h3>Any return to Red Sea voyages would have to be gradual, Clerc said, because there was limited naval capacity to escort vessels passing through the Houthi-controlled Bab el-Mandeb. “There’s only so many services that we could send through the Red Sea, and I would think that others will have the same issue,” Clerc said. “For it to be a full return, we would need to feel comfortable with the safety and security assessment that we could sail without any monitoring “I have no idea, given the volatility of the situation between the US and Iran, when that is going to be,” he added. “It could be very soon, or it could take a while.” Sailing via the Red Sea on Asia-Europe/Mediterranean and Asia-US East Coast trades is far shorter than voyages around southern Africa, and with bunker fuel prices significantly higher than before the Middle East war started, there are savings in time and costs to be had. The Red Sea route adds 31% to Asia-North Europe transit times and more than 60% to east Mediterranean destinations, some 10 to 14 days of additional sailing time that increases fuel consumption by as much as 40%, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. Bunker prices assessed May 7 in Singapore of $816 per metric ton, while almost 30% lower than the high reached in mid-March, were still 60% higher than the late February prices before the Middle East war began, according to Ship &amp; Bunker. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than if you have to use the long route as we do today,” Clerc told analysts. A resumption of Red Sea transits would also release capacity into the market that Clerc said would allow carriers to slow ship speeds, mitigating the rate-destroying impact of additional tonnage while lowering fuel consumption in a high-priced bunker market. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An end to the war in the Middle East would raise the prospect that the other key shipping corridor in the region — the Red Sea/Suez Canal — could be a viable option once again for commercial shipping, Maersk’s CEO says. Red Sea transits were halted when the war broke out in late February, just as ocean carriers were launching a tentative return to the route that had mostly been off-limits since late 2023 when Houthi militants in Yemen began attacks on vessels as a show of solidarity for Hamas in its war with Israel. Those attacks ended late last year amid a fragile ceasefire, prompting carriers to resume Red Sea transits on a small scale. But the route became effectively off-limits again when the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28. Tehran is reportedly considering the latest US peace plan, despite warships from both sides exchanging fire this week. Should the conflict end, there are hopes that Houthi militants — supported and supplied by Tehran — will allow safe passage for commercial shipping eager to return to the Red Sea/Suez Canal route. Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said an end to the war would bring the Red Sea back into the frame for the Copenhagen-based carrier, and he pointed out that no attacks have been reported in the Red Sea so far this year. But Clerc, speaking to analysts during Maersk’s first-quarter earnings call Thursday, said while the carrier assesses the situation between the US and Iran with the view of eventually restarting some services through the Red Sea, Maersk would be taking a cautious approach, with the safety of seafarers the “first priority.” He also said the safety threshold required by Maersk appeared to be higher than that being applied by other carriers. “There is no doubt that we have a bit of a different threshold than some of our competitors that are going through the Bab el-Mandeb [Strait] today,” Clerc said. The Maersk CEO was clearly referencing CMA CGM, which has sent several ships via the Red Sea this year and just last week safely sailed its 23,876-TEU CMA CGM Grand Palais through the Bab el-Mandab Strait and Suez Canal en route to Malta from Singapore. Clerc also noted that some carriers in the Strait of Hormuz were taking “different chances than we did and have had either people being detained or people getting injured.” That, again, appeared to refer to CMA CGM, which on Tuesday had a vessel hit by a projectile while sailing past the coast of Oman at night. CMA CGM said in a statement the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care,” the carrier said. “CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew.” Limited naval escort capacity Any return to Red Sea voyages would have to be gradual, Clerc said, because there was limited naval capacity to escort vessels passing through the Houthi-controlled Bab el-Mandeb. “There’s only so many services that we could send through the Red Sea, and I would think that others will have the same issue,” Clerc said. “For it to be a full return, we would need to feel comfortable with the safety and security assessment that we could sail without any monitoring “I have no idea, given the volatility of the situation between the US and Iran, when that is going to be,” he added. “It could be very soon, or it could take a while.” Sailing via the Red Sea on Asia-Europe/Mediterranean and Asia-US East Coast trades is far shorter than voyages around southern Africa, and with bunker fuel prices significantly higher than before the Middle East war started, there are savings in time and costs to be had. The Red Sea route adds 31% to Asia-North Europe transit times and more than 60% to east Mediterranean destinations, some 10 to 14 days of additional sailing time that increases fuel consumption by as much as 40%, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. Bunker prices assessed May 7 in Singapore of $816 per metric ton, while almost 30% lower than the high reached in mid-March, were still 60% higher than the late February prices before the Middle East war began, according to Ship & Bunker. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than if you have to use the long route as we do today,” Clerc told analysts. A resumption of Red Sea transits would also release capacity into the market that Clerc said would allow carriers to slow ship speeds, mitigating the rate-destroying impact of additional tonnage while lowering fuel consumption in a high-priced bunker market. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Maersk mulls potential Red Sea return as hopes rise over US-Iran deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.</div>

The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.

<div class="phx-topic">An acquisition that inflated one large carrier’s truck count by 28% pushed the first-quarter Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 6.3 percentage points to 79.8%. However, eliminating the gain from that merger, the index would have declined. That indicates capacity at large truckload carriers is still tightening after the TCI fell 20.8 percentage points over three and a half years, starting in the 2022 second quarter. Shippers are likely to feel the impact from that tightening in upcoming bids. “We expect pricing gains to continue with more meaningful improvement in the third and fourth quarters,” Werner Enterprises CEO Derek Leathers said during an April 28 earnings call. Werner hiked contract rates by mid-single-digit percentages in the first quarter. Werner acquired FirstFleet, a dedicated carrier with about 2,400 trucks, in December. Excluding Werner, the TCI, a measure of actual trucks available at a group of large publicly-owned carriers, would have dropped to 70.9% in the first quarter. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="37b149d1-14d5-4221-933a-12c01811c4a6"></dynamic-object></div>“Demand has not moved a lot,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s still muted, but [tender] rejections are way up, and spot rates are way up ... That’s supply driven.” “I think everything right now is being supply-induced on the capacity side,” Frank Lonegro, CEO of truckload carrier Landstar System, told analysts during an April 28 earnings call. “If we see an incremental uptick in demand, you’re going to see it on the volume side.” <h3>Shift toward dedicated trucking </h3>Werner’s $245 million acquisition of FirstFleet came just as declining truckload capacity began pushing up spot market rates in late 2025. The Journal of Commerce average shipper-paid spot rate jumped from $2.27 per mile in November to $2.46 per mile in December. The all-inclusive average rate, which represents rates charged by third-party freight brokers to shippers, including fuel surcharges, had reached $2.87 per mile by May. That’s a 34% year-over-year increase from an average rate of $2.14 per mile in April 2025. FirstFleet “created a significant amount [of] more density across certain geographies in our network,” that created “a multiplier effect” on Werner’s dedicated business, Leathers said on his company’s earnings call. At the same time, Werner has been restructuring its traditional one-way truckload business, changing its freight mix and shrinking its one-way truck fleet by 11% year over year. In the first quarter, revenue per one-way truck rose 9.6%, Werner said. Werner exemplifies a shift by large carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/large-us-truckload-carriers-shifting-assets-to-expand-dedicated-services-5935831">toward dedicated trucking</a>, with its higher profit margin, and away from more volatile one-way truckload service. As that shift continues, shippers will rely increasingly on midsize and smaller carriers to move one-way shipments. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An acquisition that inflated one large carrier’s truck count by 28% pushed the first-quarter Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 6.3 percentage points to 79.8%. However, eliminating the gain from that merger, the index would have declined. That indicates capacity at large truckload carriers is still tightening after the TCI fell 20.8 percentage points over three and a half years, starting in the 2022 second quarter. Shippers are likely to feel the impact from that tightening in upcoming bids. “We expect pricing gains to continue with more meaningful improvement in the third and fourth quarters,” Werner Enterprises CEO Derek Leathers said during an April 28 earnings call. Werner hiked contract rates by mid-single-digit percentages in the first quarter. Werner acquired FirstFleet, a dedicated carrier with about 2,400 trucks, in December. Excluding Werner, the TCI, a measure of actual trucks available at a group of large publicly-owned carriers, would have dropped to 70.9% in the first quarter. “Demand has not moved a lot,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s still muted, but [tender] rejections are way up, and spot rates are way up ... That’s supply driven.” “I think everything right now is being supply-induced on the capacity side,” Frank Lonegro, CEO of truckload carrier Landstar System, told analysts during an April 28 earnings call. “If we see an incremental uptick in demand, you’re going to see it on the volume side.” Shift toward dedicated trucking Werner’s $245 million acquisition of FirstFleet came just as declining truckload capacity began pushing up spot market rates in late 2025. The Journal of Commerce average shipper-paid spot rate jumped from $2.27 per mile in November to $2.46 per mile in December. The all-inclusive average rate, which represents rates charged by third-party freight brokers to shippers, including fuel surcharges, had reached $2.87 per mile by May. That’s a 34% year-over-year increase from an average rate of $2.14 per mile in April 2025. FirstFleet “created a significant amount [of] more density across certain geographies in our network,” that created “a multiplier effect” on Werner’s dedicated business, Leathers said on his company’s earnings call. At the same time, Werner has been restructuring its traditional one-way truckload business, changing its freight mix and shrinking its one-way truck fleet by 11% year over year. In the first quarter, revenue per one-way truck rose 9.6%, Werner said. Werner exemplifies a shift by large carriers toward dedicated trucking , with its higher profit margin, and away from more volatile one-way truckload service. As that shift continues, shippers will rely increasingly on midsize and smaller carriers to move one-way shipments. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Werner acquisition boosts Truckload Capacity Index despite low demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A container imbalance fee at the Port of New York and New Jersey that was designed to improve port fluidity may, ironically, drive away discretionary cargo instead, writes the executive director of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association. </div>

A container imbalance fee at the Port of New York and New Jersey that was designed to improve port fluidity may, ironically, drive away discretionary cargo instead, writes the executive director of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of New York and New Jersey is one of the most important economic engines in the United States. It handles enormous volumes of cargo, supports hundreds of thousands of regional jobs, and is a critical gateway for US manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Policies affecting port operations must be carefully designed and targeted at improving supply chain efficiency. The port’s decision to implement <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-nj-updating-port-tariff-to-combat-rising-backlog-of-empty-boxes-6208652">a new container imbalance fee</a>, which went into effect May 1, risks doing the opposite. Ocean carriers share the port’s goal of maintaining a fluid, resilient supply chain. They invest billions of dollars every year to move cargo efficiently through US ports. Congestion harms ocean carriers as much as any other supply chain stakeholder. That is why ocean carriers are concerned that this fee comes at a time when it is neither necessary nor well designed to address the causes of port congestion, and, in fact, due to a flaw in its formulation, may do more harm than good. Container imbalance fees were first proposed during the pandemic, when unprecedented consumer demand, warehouse labor shortages, and constrained terminals created severe congestion. In that extraordinary context, some ports considered penalties to force short-term behavioral change. They focused on the effect, not the cause. Volumes have since normalized, supply chains have recalibrated, and these extraordinary disruptions have receded. The port of NY-NJ, along with all other port authorities who considered such a fee, ultimately found it unnecessary. <h3>NY-NJ’s benefits, and challenges </h3>Due to geography, population density, and intermodal connectivity, ocean carriers design their rotations with New York as first port of call on the East Coast. This brings major benefits, including discretionary cargo that could easily move through other gateways if costs rise too high. Those same dynamics create equipment challenges: 1) Import volumes far exceed exports, leaving large numbers of empty containers with limited outbound cargo. 2) Cargo destined for New York is often stowed above later port cargo for stability reasons, limiting the ability to load empties without costly rehandling. Export demand forecasts are frequently inaccurate, and carriers protect space for later ports. 3) Disruptions and vessel bunching further complicated equipment planning. These are structural realities and not failures of carrier behavior. Perhaps most critically, container volumes have continued to grow without a corresponding increase in terminal density or off-dock container yard capacity. In fact, container yard space within the port complex has declined in recent years, even as the need for storage has increased. If the port lacks space to handle current and projected volumes based on actual dwell times, no fee structure will resolve congestion. Before imposing penalties, the port should commission an independent study by terminal design experts to determine whether the port complex is appropriately sized both today and for the future. <h3>Fee mechanics ‘deeply flawed’ </h3>Setting aside broader concerns, the mechanics of the imbalance fee are deeply flawed. The current formula focuses on whether containers enter and exit facilities by sea or rail. It ignores containers that leave via truck and never return to the port. These include leased and one-way containers that are returned to owners after import; truck-served inland cargo to locations such as Boston, Montreal or Toronto; off-dock container yards used by ocean carriers at significant expense, specifically to relieve congestion (an approach this fee would discourage); and damaged containers held under jurisdictional rules, for reasons beyond a carrier’s control. By failing to recognize these realities, the fee formula risks charging ocean carriers for containers that are no longer in the port — potentially more than once. Rolling past imbalances into future billing periods only compounds the problem, ensuring fees are disconnected from actual conditions. Most importantly, the formula is a deterrent to ocean carriers actively taking steps to solve empty storage issues, as carriers will pay this fee regardless. Ironically, a fee designed to improve port fluidity may instead drive discretionary cargo away from New York and New Jersey altogether. Ocean carriers and inland cargo owners have choices. If costs rise without meaningful benefit, freight will move elsewhere. That would mean fewer containers, fewer truck and rail moves, and fewer jobs for the region —not improved fluidity. Ocean carriers stand ready to work constructively with the port to address empty container issues. Collaboration, not unilateral penalties, is how durable solutions are achieved in complex supply chains. The port should commission an independent capacity study and revise the formula to ensure it reflects how containers actually move through the port complex, fully considering the interests and incentives of those stakeholders that are involved. Getting this right matters, and not just for ocean carriers, but for the long-term competitiveness of one of America’s most vital ports. Robert Cannizzaro is executive director of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA). Contact him at <a href="mailto:rcannizzaro@ocema.org">rcannizzaro@ocema.org</a>. </div>

The Port of New York and New Jersey is one of the most important economic engines in the United States. It handles enormous volumes of cargo, supports hundreds of thousands of regional jobs, and is a critical gateway for US manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Policies affecting port operations must be carefully designed and targeted at improving supply chain efficiency. The port’s decision to implement a new container imbalance fee , which went into effect May 1, risks doing the opposite. Ocean carriers share the port’s goal of maintaining a fluid, resilient supply chain. They invest billions of dollars every year to move cargo efficiently through US ports. Congestion harms ocean carriers as much as any other supply chain stakeholder. That is why ocean carriers are concerned that this fee comes at a time when it is neither necessary nor well designed to address the causes of port congestion, and, in fact, due to a flaw in its formulation, may do more harm than good. Container imbalance fees were first proposed during the pandemic, when unprecedented consumer demand, warehouse labor shortages, and constrained terminals created severe congestion. In that extraordinary context, some ports considered penalties to force short-term behavioral change. They focused on the effect, not the cause. Volumes have since normalized, supply chains have recalibrated, and these extraordinary disruptions have receded. The port of NY-NJ, along with all other port authorities who considered such a fee, ultimately found it unnecessary. NY-NJ’s benefits, and challenges Due to geography, population density, and intermodal connectivity, ocean carriers design their rotations with New York as first port of call on the East Coast. This brings major benefits, including discretionary cargo that could easily move through other gateways if costs rise too high. Those same dynamics create equipment challenges: 1) Import volumes far exceed exports, leaving large numbers of empty containers with limited outbound cargo. 2) Cargo destined for New York is often stowed above later port cargo for stability reasons, limiting the ability to load empties without costly rehandling. Export demand forecasts are frequently inaccurate, and carriers protect space for later ports. 3) Disruptions and vessel bunching further complicated equipment planning. These are structural realities and not failures of carrier behavior. Perhaps most critically, container volumes have continued to grow without a corresponding increase in terminal density or off-dock container yard capacity. In fact, container yard space within the port complex has declined in recent years, even as the need for storage has increased. If the port lacks space to handle current and projected volumes based on actual dwell times, no fee structure will resolve congestion. Before imposing penalties, the port should commission an independent study by terminal design experts to determine whether the port complex is appropriately sized both today and for the future. Fee mechanics ‘deeply flawed’ Setting aside broader concerns, the mechanics of the imbalance fee are deeply flawed. The current formula focuses on whether containers enter and exit facilities by sea or rail. It ignores containers that leave via truck and never return to the port. These include leased and one-way containers that are returned to owners after import; truck-served inland cargo to locations such as Boston, Montreal or Toronto; off-dock container yards used by ocean carriers at significant expense, specifically to relieve congestion (an approach this fee would discourage); and damaged containers held under jurisdictional rules, for reasons beyond a carrier’s control. By failing to recognize these realities, the fee formula risks charging ocean carriers for containers that are no longer in the port — potentially more than once. Rolling past imbalances into future billing periods only compounds the problem, ensuring fees are disconnected from actual conditions. Most importantly, the formula is a deterrent to ocean carriers actively taking steps to solve empty storage issues, as carriers will pay this fee regardless. Ironically, a fee designed to improve port fluidity may instead drive discretionary cargo away from New York and New Jersey altogether. Ocean carriers and inland cargo owners have choices. If costs rise without meaningful benefit, freight will move elsewhere. That would mean fewer containers, fewer truck and rail moves, and fewer jobs for the region —not improved fluidity. Ocean carriers stand ready to work constructively with the port to address empty container issues. Collaboration, not unilateral penalties, is how durable solutions are achieved in complex supply chains. The port should commission an independent capacity study and revise the formula to ensure it reflects how containers actually move through the port complex, fully considering the interests and incentives of those stakeholders that are involved. Getting this right matters, and not just for ocean carriers, but for the long-term competitiveness of one of America’s most vital ports. Robert Cannizzaro is executive director of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA). Contact him at rcannizzaro@ocema.org .

The high cost of a flawed port container fee in NY-NJ 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">When importers control freight, they control options such as ocean carriers, transit times and service levels, thus helping to shield themselves from problems that can arise when the control is left to others, writes Andy Heller. </div>

When importers control freight, they control options such as ocean carriers, transit times and service levels, thus helping to shield themselves from problems that can arise when the control is left to others, writes Andy Heller.

<div class="phx-topic">Should an importer control freight or allow suppliers to route them? Without question, take control of one’s freight and help shield your company from supply chain disruptions. Most experienced importers control freight through free on board (FOB) or free carrier (FCA) terms. This isn’t about distrust, but control. Delivered duty paid (DDP) puts control in the hands of the supplier, creating a built-in conflict: the supplier’s margin versus the importer’s delivery date. When freight rates rise, the supplier commonly faces situations where the cost of freight rises above the allocation the supplier baked into a fixed DDP price. Not willing to absorb the difference, the importer may hear an update such as “no space this week,” ... “carrier rolled the container,”... and “port congestion.” When bookings peak, those explanations can be partly true. The issue is that the importer cannot police or control under DDP terms. A factory allocates $6,000 for freight, hoping to secure transport for less and pocket the difference. During peak season, freight jumped to $6,400. The supplier expected rates to drop in a couple of weeks, so the supplier told the importer an excuse and shipped the container two weeks later. The delay cost the importer almost $500,000 as the importer incurred a late penalty from their own customer, as well as losing two weeks of key sales during the holiday shopping season. If the importer had instead controlled freight, they would have paid the extra $400 without consequence. Instead, the decision was made for them. <h3>Other risks when suppliers control freight </h3>When importers control freight, they control options: different ocean carriers, transit times, service levels, and so on. Importers decide when to pay for fast transit, as well as when to focus on cost minimization. Suppliers overseas can have a “foreign power of attorney,” which will allow them to clear US customs despite residing overseas. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement is data-driven. The importer of record is generally responsible for the accuracy of the entry data, not the overseas factory. If a shipment gets flagged, the importer’s inventory sits and it is their customer that waits. International commerce terms define commercial responsibilities — they don’t eliminate customs scrutiny. Cheap DDP pricing that can’t be explained clearly should raise questions. In other words, overseas suppliers’ primary goal is to sell products. Cheaper DDP pricing facilitates that. For example, if the supplier uses a harmonized code that triggers a 15% duty rate, where the more accurate code would trigger a 43% duty, if or when customs discover the discrepancy, the fines and duty differential would become the responsibility of the importer. Again, under DDP pricing, the supplier completely controls the customs process. <h3>When DDP can make sense </h3>When you’re new and the factory offers to handle everything, it genuinely seems easier. DDP isn’t automatically wrong, and in some situations it works. If the supplier has a legitimate US presence, established compliance procedures, and is transparent about how entries are filed, DDP can be workable. In this case, importers should insist on receiving entry summaries (CBP Form 7501) and supporting documentation and having a US broker verify classifications and duties. While this should solve the problem of misclassification, it still doesn’t give the importer control of cargo routing and transportation pricing. The pattern we usually see starts with a DDP quote that’s mysteriously cheap. Then come vague answers about how that number was achieved, followed by delays no one can clearly explain. If a supplier resists a move to FOB or FCA without a clear logistics reason, the margin may be buried in the freight or the customs process. None of this by itself proves anything improper. Together, however, they signal misaligned incentives. <h3>Practical first steps </h3>Taking control doesn’t require a logistics department. In fact, the majority of smaller importers assign the responsibility for freight to an executive with other responsibilities. Speak with a freight forwarder that handles your trade lanes regularly. Evaluate them on communication and problem-solving, not just price. Interview them as well as their customs broker. Ask for references and what documentation you’ll receive. Ask your supplier for FOB or FCA pricing alongside DDP. Compare the numbers. If the DDP price is dramatically lower and no one can clearly explain why, that is a warning sign. Ask your forwarder for guidance on product lead-times, port handling, transit and clearance. Share it internally. Treat logistics as part of your business planning, not as an afterthought. DDP sounds simple. In practice, it often means less visibility and less control. Shipping terms aren’t minor details: they determine who makes decisions when something goes wrong. Isn’t control of important facets of business a key goal of most successful organizations? Logistics shouldn’t be an exception. Andy Heller is a 36-year freight forwarding veteran and president of Inspire International Forwarding, LLC. </div>

Should an importer control freight or allow suppliers to route them? Without question, take control of one’s freight and help shield your company from supply chain disruptions. Most experienced importers control freight through free on board (FOB) or free carrier (FCA) terms. This isn’t about distrust, but control. Delivered duty paid (DDP) puts control in the hands of the supplier, creating a built-in conflict: the supplier’s margin versus the importer’s delivery date. When freight rates rise, the supplier commonly faces situations where the cost of freight rises above the allocation the supplier baked into a fixed DDP price. Not willing to absorb the difference, the importer may hear an update such as “no space this week,” ... “carrier rolled the container,”... and “port congestion.” When bookings peak, those explanations can be partly true. The issue is that the importer cannot police or control under DDP terms. A factory allocates $6,000 for freight, hoping to secure transport for less and pocket the difference. During peak season, freight jumped to $6,400. The supplier expected rates to drop in a couple of weeks, so the supplier told the importer an excuse and shipped the container two weeks later. The delay cost the importer almost $500,000 as the importer incurred a late penalty from their own customer, as well as losing two weeks of key sales during the holiday shopping season. If the importer had instead controlled freight, they would have paid the extra $400 without consequence. Instead, the decision was made for them. Other risks when suppliers control freight When importers control freight, they control options: different ocean carriers, transit times, service levels, and so on. Importers decide when to pay for fast transit, as well as when to focus on cost minimization. Suppliers overseas can have a “foreign power of attorney,” which will allow them to clear US customs despite residing overseas. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement is data-driven. The importer of record is generally responsible for the accuracy of the entry data, not the overseas factory. If a shipment gets flagged, the importer’s inventory sits and it is their customer that waits. International commerce terms define commercial responsibilities — they don’t eliminate customs scrutiny. Cheap DDP pricing that can’t be explained clearly should raise questions. In other words, overseas suppliers’ primary goal is to sell products. Cheaper DDP pricing facilitates that. For example, if the supplier uses a harmonized code that triggers a 15% duty rate, where the more accurate code would trigger a 43% duty, if or when customs discover the discrepancy, the fines and duty differential would become the responsibility of the importer. Again, under DDP pricing, the supplier completely controls the customs process. When DDP can make sense When you’re new and the factory offers to handle everything, it genuinely seems easier. DDP isn’t automatically wrong, and in some situations it works. If the supplier has a legitimate US presence, established compliance procedures, and is transparent about how entries are filed, DDP can be workable. In this case, importers should insist on receiving entry summaries (CBP Form 7501) and supporting documentation and having a US broker verify classifications and duties. While this should solve the problem of misclassification, it still doesn’t give the importer control of cargo routing and transportation pricing. The pattern we usually see starts with a DDP quote that’s mysteriously cheap. Then come vague answers about how that number was achieved, followed by delays no one can clearly explain. If a supplier resists a move to FOB or FCA without a clear logistics reason, the margin may be buried in the freight or the customs process. None of this by itself proves anything improper. Together, however, they signal misaligned incentives. Practical first steps Taking control doesn’t require a logistics department. In fact, the majority of smaller importers assign the responsibility for freight to an executive with other responsibilities. Speak with a freight forwarder that handles your trade lanes regularly. Evaluate them on communication and problem-solving, not just price. Interview them as well as their customs broker. Ask for references and what documentation you’ll receive. Ask your supplier for FOB or FCA pricing alongside DDP. Compare the numbers. If the DDP price is dramatically lower and no one can clearly explain why, that is a warning sign. Ask your forwarder for guidance on product lead-times, port handling, transit and clearance. Share it internally. Treat logistics as part of your business planning, not as an afterthought. DDP sounds simple. In practice, it often means less visibility and less control. Shipping terms aren’t minor details: they determine who makes decisions when something goes wrong. Isn’t control of important facets of business a key goal of most successful organizations? Logistics shouldn’t be an exception. Andy Heller is a 36-year freight forwarding veteran and president of Inspire International Forwarding, LLC.

Importers can avoid supply chain disruptions by ‘controlling’ their freight

Indian Subcontinent to US East Coast

{date.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Y-o-Y change: {previous_year_spot_rate_change_india_to_east_coast.formatNumber('##,##')} 
W-o-W change: {previous_week_spot_rate_change_india_to_east_coast.formatNumber('##,## %')}

S&P Global Platts editors engaging with market participants to assess the current value of freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on major container trades produce container spot rates. The rates include bunker adjustment factors, general rate increases and emergency rare restoration. They also include low-sulfur fuel, equipment imbalance and repositioning surcharges. The rates exclude terminal handling, port security, overweight container, delivery, and detention and demurrage charges. [Platts](https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights)

Indian subcontinent to US East Coast container spot rates (Platts)

Platts Indian Subcontinent Asia to US East Coast Weekly Gateway

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the window to lock in those savings over long-haul trucking will shrink because railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too.</div>

But the window to lock in those savings over long-haul trucking will shrink because railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too.

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers saved a record 30.6% on spot market freight and 26.2% on contract loads in the first quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking amid a rise in truckload spot rates, according to <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/intermodal-savings-index">the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index</a> (ISI).       For the second consecutive quarter, the spot market index was higher than the contract index. The window to lock in these record savings, however, will shrink as railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too. Similar to motor carriers, railroads and intermodal providers have been unable to recover cost inflation in their intermodal operations for three years. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) have begun the repricing process, which typically lags full truckload by three to six months. Major asset-based IMCs are rejecting tenders, shedding low-margin freight, or taking other measures to limit their exposure to the shipments that they accepted in recent years to keep their containers full. As shippers face the prospect of losing guaranteed capacity, there are many who will agree to rate increases to keep product moving. The higher rates will also show up in annual contracts being negotiated in the second and third quarters. “In terms of pricing, the over-the-road market dropped much further than intermodal did, so, in terms of the degree of change, I am not sure we will see the same degree in Intermodal as over the road,” said Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider National, on an April 30 earnings call. “In terms of timing, typically we say about two quarters [lag], and from what we can see, we stay pretty consistent with that.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9f0dff14-0731-4ad3-859c-d093757d1ed4"></dynamic-object></div>Domestic intermodal volume in March jumped 9.5% year over year, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). North American railroads hauled 2.19 million domestic containers in the first quarter, up 4% compared with a year ago, according to IANA. The results were slightly higher than the Journal of Commerce mid-range forecast of volume growth between 1% and 3%, due mostly to the unanticipated surge in March. “We are seeing increased demand in how [shippers] are thinking about intermodal and what they can allocate to intermodal,” Filter said. “Current fuel cost is making a difference, as well as [shippers’] anticipation of what capacity will look like later this year ... While there is plenty of box capacity, the real constraint in this industry is always dray capacity.” <h3>Rates on the way up </h3>The Spot ISI averaged 130.6 in the first quarter, up from 118.4 a year ago. The Contract ISI rose to 126.3 from 124.9 a year ago.     Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode; the higher the index number, the greater the savings. A Spot ISI of 130.6 translates to a 30.6% savings on intermodal versus truckload, while a Contract ISI of 126.3 implies a 26.3% savings.     All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 miles from the terminal may save significantly less than the index values.   Spot truckload rates in the first quarter jumped 19 cents sequentially to $2.34 per mile, including fuel, while spot intermodal rates rose 10 cents to $1.64 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates surged 27 cents to $2.25 per mile, including fuel, while contract intermodal prices climbed 15 cents to $1.65 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates, excluding fuel spikes, rose 4.6% year over year in the first quarter, while contract intermodal rates climbed 2.5% year over year on the same lanes. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $1,025 per container on the spot market in the first quarter compared with truckload, and $900 per box on the contract market. In the first quarter of 2025, the average spot intermodal load saved $675 per container, with the contract load saving $830.   <h3>Service will be put to the test </h3>The coming months will be the first major stress test for the railroads and the drayage networks of the IMCs since the service meltdowns during the pandemic-related freight surge. Multiple shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that on-time pickups and deliveries slipped in March, with their intermodal partners citing dray capacity as a root cause. The pressure isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon. The  Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volume will grow between 3% and 4.5% year over year in the second quarter. Using advanced statistical analysis, the Journal of Commerce forecasts a 98% probability that volumes will exceed the 2.12 million loads hauled in the second quarter of 2025. The average intermodal train speed among US railroads was 2.7% faster year to date through the end of April compared with the same period a year ago, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. That came as the number of rail cars carrying containers that idled for more than 48 hours through the first four months of the year declined 14% compared with a year ago. Both data points show that, for now, intermodal trains are moving quickly through their service networks, and the handoffs between railroads and trucks remain fluid at most US rail hubs. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.       The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription. </div>

US shippers saved a record 30.6% on spot market freight and 26.2% on contract loads in the first quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking amid a rise in truckload spot rates, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index  (ISI).       For the second consecutive quarter, the spot market index was higher than the contract index. The window to lock in these record savings, however, will shrink as railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too. Similar to motor carriers, railroads and intermodal providers have been unable to recover cost inflation in their intermodal operations for three years. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) have begun the repricing process, which typically lags full truckload by three to six months. Major asset-based IMCs are rejecting tenders, shedding low-margin freight, or taking other measures to limit their exposure to the shipments that they accepted in recent years to keep their containers full. As shippers face the prospect of losing guaranteed capacity, there are many who will agree to rate increases to keep product moving. The higher rates will also show up in annual contracts being negotiated in the second and third quarters. “In terms of pricing, the over-the-road market dropped much further than intermodal did, so, in terms of the degree of change, I am not sure we will see the same degree in Intermodal as over the road,” said Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider National, on an April 30 earnings call. “In terms of timing, typically we say about two quarters [lag], and from what we can see, we stay pretty consistent with that.” Domestic intermodal volume in March jumped 9.5% year over year, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). North American railroads hauled 2.19 million domestic containers in the first quarter, up 4% compared with a year ago, according to IANA. The results were slightly higher than the Journal of Commerce mid-range forecast of volume growth between 1% and 3%, due mostly to the unanticipated surge in March. “We are seeing increased demand in how [shippers] are thinking about intermodal and what they can allocate to intermodal,” Filter said. “Current fuel cost is making a difference, as well as [shippers’] anticipation of what capacity will look like later this year ... While there is plenty of box capacity, the real constraint in this industry is always dray capacity.” Rates on the way up The Spot ISI averaged 130.6 in the first quarter, up from 118.4 a year ago. The Contract ISI rose to 126.3 from 124.9 a year ago.     Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode; the higher the index number, the greater the savings. A Spot ISI of 130.6 translates to a 30.6% savings on intermodal versus truckload, while a Contract ISI of 126.3 implies a 26.3% savings.     All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 miles from the terminal may save significantly less than the index values.   Spot truckload rates in the first quarter jumped 19 cents sequentially to $2.34 per mile, including fuel, while spot intermodal rates rose 10 cents to $1.64 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates surged 27 cents to $2.25 per mile, including fuel, while contract intermodal prices climbed 15 cents to $1.65 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates, excluding fuel spikes, rose 4.6% year over year in the first quarter, while contract intermodal rates climbed 2.5% year over year on the same lanes. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $1,025 per container on the spot market in the first quarter compared with truckload, and $900 per box on the contract market. In the first quarter of 2025, the average spot intermodal load saved $675 per container, with the contract load saving $830.   Service will be put to the test The coming months will be the first major stress test for the railroads and the drayage networks of the IMCs since the service meltdowns during the pandemic-related freight surge. Multiple shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that on-time pickups and deliveries slipped in March, with their intermodal partners citing dray capacity as a root cause. The pressure isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon. The  Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volume will grow between 3% and 4.5% year over year in the second quarter. Using advanced statistical analysis, the Journal of Commerce forecasts a 98% probability that volumes will exceed the 2.12 million loads hauled in the second quarter of 2025. The average intermodal train speed among US railroads was 2.7% faster year to date through the end of April compared with the same period a year ago, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. That came as the number of rail cars carrying containers that idled for more than 48 hours through the first four months of the year declined 14% compared with a year ago. Both data points show that, for now, intermodal trains are moving quickly through their service networks, and the handoffs between railroads and trucks remain fluid at most US rail hubs. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .       The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription.

Rail News

North-American rail

Shippers banked record discounts via intermodal in Q1: ISI

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

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

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

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

Intermodal providers

Rising fuel costs forcing US truck shippers to shift freight

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

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

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

Marine terminals

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

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

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

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

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

Port infrastructure

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says. </div>

But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. <h3>‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 </h3>Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. <h3>Overcapacity hangs over industry </h3>Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="65404dbe-8b60-43eb-9f13-4179bde44e2b"></dynamic-object></div>Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. ‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. Overcapacity hangs over industry Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Maersk passing $500 million monthly fuel bill to customers ‘in full’: CEO

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

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

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

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst

Shippers banked record discounts via intermodal in Q1: ISI

Rising fuel costs forcing US truck shippers to shift freight

Recent Commentary

The high cost of a flawed port container fee in NY-NJ

Importers can avoid supply chain disruptions by ‘controlling’ their freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories